Making a Start - The Peak District Midland / Monsal Dale pre 1903

[grovenor-2685]

The wagons in the siding behind the platform will have been dropped there for some traffic or engineering purpose.
Those in the loop or lay by look as though they are a train using the lay by to wait for a path, the last vehicle looks to be a brake van.
Regards

[Armchair Modeller]

Looking at the maps, the loop was a long headshunt for the siding in earlier days,

Or a lie-by as I suggest above [a long headshunt seems improbable, since, if that is its purpose, it can only be accessed via the much shorter goods siding and trains travelling the other way would have the loco at the wrong end...] Changing the down siding into a loop was almost certainly what led to the change in position of the signal, as the starter would then need to be beyond the end of the loop.

The lie-by is shown as a loop in the 1880 map and the 1922 map. I suspect the loop is much earlier than you think.

It is the 1923 map that shows the signal moved to the tunnel mouth.

[Noel]

The wagons in the siding behind the platform will have been dropped there for some traffic or engineering purpose. Those in the loop or lay by look as though they are a train using the lay by to wait for a path, the last vehicle looks to be a brake van.

The last vehicle is a brake van, an ex-SR one, but does not seem to have a tail light. However, there is no loco on the other end so far as I can see. As a guess, perhaps the vehicles in the goods siding are the front of the same train, which was too long to be backed in via the points at the g/f without fouling the next section, and the loco entering the tunnel, so the front was separated and put in the goods siding, and the rest would then fit between the points and the starter.

The lie-by is shown as a loop in the 1880 map and the 1922 map. I suspect the loop is much earlier than you think.

I don't know the dates of the maps posted, nor do I have any personal knowledge of the line, so I have no opinion on when the siding was converted to a loop nor when the signal was moved, other than that the conversion to a loop was the most likely time for the move. I do not believe that any British railway in the late 19th or early 20th century, particularly the Midland, [or the Board of Trade] would have allowed a situation in which a train leaving the loop could enter the next section without passing some form of fixed signal. Such a signal could be the other side of the tunnel, but this seems an unnecessary complication since the starter was clearly moved at some time.

[Armchair Modeller]

I don't know the dates of the maps posted, nor do I have any personal knowledge of the line, so I have no opinion on when the siding was converted to a loop nor when the signal was moved, other than that the conversion to a loop was the most likely time for the move. I do not believe that any British railway in the late 19th or early 20th century, particularly the Midland, [or the Board of Trade] would have allowed a situation in which a train leaving the loop could enter the next section without passing some form of fixed signal. Such a signal could be the other side of the tunnel, but this seems an unnecessary complication since the starter was clearly moved at some time.

The 1922 and 1898 25 inch maps do show a signal just beyond the end of the loop - an extract was shown earlier in this topic. The signal next to the tunnel mouth and lack of signal at the end of the loop is on the 1923 6 inch map. I don't think anyone is suggesting there was never a signal beyond the end of the loop whilst it existed. The signal may have been moved before 1922, but the 12 inch map not updated (not unusual).

Interestingly however, the loop does not show on the 1880 map, but no signals are shown - possibly an omission? The equivalent 6 inch map shows no loop and a signal next to a very short headshunt for the goods siding. That would suggest to me that the loop and signalling changes were done after the time these maps were surveyed in 1888/9 - but it is only a guess.

So there may well have been 2 re-sitings of the starter. Firstly from the end of the goods siding to the end of the loop when the loop was built (maybe after 1888/9 and before 1898) - then a move to the tunnel mouth some time before 1923.

I too am not an expert on the line - other than walking the footpath that now follows the trackbed a few times. I just looked at the maps out of curiosity. I am not trying to criticise you Noel, just pointing out what I saw on the maps to try and help everyone.

Edited for typos!

[Le Corbusier]

so .... bringing this back to my initial question.

Firstly from the end of the goods siding to the end of the loop when the loop was built (maybe after 1888/9 and before 1898) - then a move to the tunnel mouth some time before 1923.

I am hoping that this suggests that for my layout I could site the starter reasonably soon after the end of the loop without this being a stupid position in signalling terms? ... and if the starter is ok at the 1923 position - I could bring the tunnel entrance forward to mimic this positioning. This would allow me to model a foreshortened version of the track and fit it in the space I have available?

so the loop could then function as a

lay by to wait for a path

and also be used as a head shunt for the station siding.

Bill Hudsons book on the stations states

As traffic increased the need for additional lie bys arose particularly for the slow moving down trains, and in 1889 the existing siding to the north of the station was connected to the down main line at the Manchester end. At the same time the siding to the wharf was connected in to this lie by. The signal box was to the north of the station on the 'up' side, and when it was renewed late in 1896 the replacement was sited a little nearer the station.
...Although rudimentary freight facilities existed traffic was always light and up to the turn of the century consisted solely of coal and coke for Cressbrook Mill and domestic consumption. ... four or five wagons per week. With the opening of the spar mine (the mine is shown in operation in the 1911 photo and as Hudson state's 'it is uncertain when operations began', I am going to assume that it was in operation for my period), the construction of an engineering workshop at Cressbrook Mill and greater use of the steam engine installed at the mill late in the 19th century demand increased markedly. (Hudson gives figures for 1922 of) a little over 9,000 tons of coal and coke came in, representing 27 or 28 wagons weekly.
..... Freight was dealt with as required by the 12.20pm stopping freight from Rowsley to Millers Dale, which would have taken any outgoing traffic on to Millers Dale for sorting and dispatch.

So I am assuming that incoming was the coal, and outgoing would mainly have been spar from the mine and goods from the Mill. It should allow me to do a very little shunting etc?

Tim

[John Palmer]

I haven't been able to find an online map showing No.3 repositioned closer to the tunnel, but I had assumed this signal had been located close to the tunnel to avoid the need for a shunt into the forward section of a freight that was to be recessed in the loop described as the 'Down Siding'. For this reason I wouldn't want to re-site No.3 closer to the loop's exit.

I think Noel is being a bit pessimistic about the capacity for running round made available by the connections into the Down Siding. Fortunately the NLS map supplies a handy measuring tool that can assist with this, and the attached plan extract shows that there's a distance of about 140 feet between the fouling points of the two crossovers. Assuming an average wagon length of about 20 feet over buffers, that means there's room to get an engine round seven wagons. This is only going to be required in the case of an Up train. For a wayside station such as this, the need to shunt more than seven wagons on a daily basis would be fairly exceptional.

Monsal run round.jpg

My feeling about the locking is that 7 Points will be released by 6 Points. The interlocking principle is: 'Points, where necessary, to be so interlocked as to avoid the risk of collision.' Although that makes a case for reversal of 8 Points locking 6 Points normal and vice versa, my guess is that if the operating department requires a capability for Up trains to shunt the station then this lock will not be implemented, in which case 6 and 8 Points can both stand reversed (and therefore release 7), thereby facilitating the running round of the engine of an Up train.

Any shunt is going to involve occupation of one or both running lines. The Down Home signal (No.2) is located about 330 yards from the box, whilst the Up Home stands very close to the box. This means that movements over the crossovers are going to infringe the clearing point 440 yards in advance of one or both home signals. Unless warning acceptance of trains is authorised for this box (unlikely), this will mean that any such infringement will preclude acceptance of a Down train whilst the shunt is in progress and will also preclude acceptance of an Up train if the shunt involves a movement over 6 Points. Attaching or detaching of wagons will, consequently, be dictated by the pattern of other traffic. It might well be necessary to recess the train conveying wagons to/from Monsal Dale until a suitable gap in passing traffic can be found to accommodate the shunt.

The station stands on a gradient of 1 in 125 rising in the Down direction, easing to 1 in 120 beyond. At some stage during any shunt wagons will have to stand on a running line, and if they can't be held in situ by the brake van some pinning down of brakes is going to be necessary.

If you do without the ground frame-controlled loop exit (as you suggest in your 17/12/16 17:14 post) then, somewhat paradoxically, it becomes more straightforward to tuck away an Up train in what has become the Down side headshunt than the to-and-fro movements required to recess a Down train. There's actually a reasonable amount of operational interest even in this simplified layout.

[Armchair Modeller]

Just a suggestion. If you wanted a compact version that was prototypical you could always use the early layout without the loop. That would save you quite a considerable distance - far more than just moving the tunnel mouth to the end of the loop. Just pretend that the tunnel mouth was much, much closer to the station, so there was never room for a loop in the first place.

Mondal.jpg

As I mentioned earlier there were no signals marked on this map but they are shown on the 6 inch map of the same period. This would offer most of the operating potential of the later version with the loop.

There would have been room for a refuge siding to the east of the platforms if necessary, on the other side of the road bridge.

[Le Corbusier]

Thanks very much to both John and Armchair Modeller for this input. I am definitely tending towards the idea of a scenario where I pretend that the loop was never constructed.

I do have an area I am still not really understanding though. This is to do with the relative positioning of signal 3?

Bill Hudson in his history of the station suggests that the reason for the larger loop was as an additional lie by for slow moving down trains. This, as I currently understand things, was put in in 1889 as an extension to the existing head shunt for the wharf.

The wharf itself is of course pretty limited in length (similar to John's run around length) and even at peak usage is unlikely to have dealt with more that 28 wagons per week (Bills Hudson's estimate) which would also tie with John's run around limit of 7 wagons.

On my current understanding of how things might have worked, I had assumed that the working of the wharf would have continued pretty much as was the case before the loop was built (i.e. using the smaller run around and a very limited part of the loop as head shunt). The loop itself I had assumed was to a great extent independent of this usage and was there purely as a lie by. Why therefore for usage as a lie by would placing the starter signal 3 say 60ft beyond the end of the loop pose a problem?

[Noel]

My feeling about the locking is that 7 Points will be released by 6 Points. The interlocking principle is: 'Points, where necessary, to be so interlocked as to avoid the risk of collision.' Although that makes a case for reversal of 8 Points locking 6 Points normal and vice versa, my guess is that if the operating department requires a capability for Up trains to shunt the station then this lock will not be implemented, in which case 6 and 8 Points can both stand reversed (and therefore release 7), thereby facilitating the running round of the engine of an Up train.

The g/f is bolt released by lever 9 in the box, according to the signal diagram. Without a locking diagram we can't tell what locks or is locked by no.9, so we can't resolve this at present, I think. Interestingly, the diagram seems to show track circuits [probably not there in 1902], which would be affected if wagons were left standing on them, which would affect the signalling and possibly which points could be moved. It seems though that no such movements were contemplated in normal operation, as the extract from Bill Hudson's book states that

Freight was dealt with as required by the 12.20pm stopping freight from Rowsley to Millers Dale, which would have taken any outgoing traffic on to Millers Dale for sorting and dispatch

.

Why therefore for usage as a lie by would placing the starter signal 3 say 60ft beyond the end of the loop pose a problem?

The Midland had a great dislike of facing points, so a lie-by, like this one, was entered by reversing into it. The starter being 60ft beyond the points, and the tunnel shortly beyond it means the train would have to be offered to the next box, to permit it to enter the next section, and be some distance into the tunnel, before it could reverse, both of which present problems as mentioned earlier.

[Noel]

So there may well have been 2 re-sitings of the starter. Firstly from the end of the goods siding to the end of the loop when the loop was built (maybe after 1888/9 and before 1898) - then a move to the tunnel mouth some time before 1923.

According to the extract from Bill Hudson's book, the loop was created in 1889, so a double move is certainly possible. Wooden posts had a limited life span, so possibly the location was changed on renewal of the post.

I am not trying to criticise you Noel, just pointing out what I saw on the maps to try and help everyone.

No problem. Sorry if I came across as being a bit irritated, it wasn't intentional.

[Le Corbusier]

The Midland had a great dislike of facing points, so a lie-by, like this one, was entered by reversing into it. The starter being 60ft beyond the points, and the tunnel shortly beyond it means the train would have to be offered to the next box, to permit it to enter the next section, and be some distance into the tunnel, before it could reverse, both of which present problems as mentioned earlier.

I new I had overlooked a vital piece of information .... Thanks Noel, all a bit clearer now.

Tim

[John Palmer]

Why therefore for usage as a lie by would placing the starter signal 3 say 60ft beyond the end of the loop pose a problem?

If the Down Starting signal (No.3) is positioned only 60 feet in advance of the trailing connection into the loop, then you might just about manage to fit a small engine and one wagon between the signal and the toe of the loop points. You really don't want to be in that position, because, as Noel has said, Millersdale will have to accept a shunt into the forward section so that you can get the whole of your train clear of the loop points before it is propelled into the lie-by. If Millersdale's Down line clearing point happens to be obstructed the shunt won't be accepted until that obstruction is removed. Meanwhile Great Longstone wants to know why you can't accept the Down London-Manchester he's holding at his signals...

The same considerations apply to the simplified layout without the trailing loop connection controlled by the ground frame. You still want your starting signal positioned where you can draw substantially the whole of the 12.20 p.m. Down Goods clear of 8 points prior to propulsion of part of it into the loading bank to attach/detach traffic.

In the simplified layout without the loop, shunting is entirely straightforward for a Down train – until the Down line has to be cleared for passage of another train, at which point you need to block both Up and Down lines in order to propel the train into the headshunt. If that need coincides with the passage of an Up train then the movement will have to be delayed.

[Armchair Modeller]

Just out of curiosity I drew what might be done to turn this into a reasonable length model railway

Mondal2.jpg

I used the early track plan and moved the tunnel much closer to the station, as I suggested previously. A lie-by east of the station would work quite well, as much of the length could be hidden in a fiddle yard. Also, there is plenty of room on the visible part of the layout to draw a train forward and reverse into the lie-by without having to enter the tunnel. I also extended the headshunt for the goods siding just a little, but this doesn't have to be done, of course.

For a scenic break at the eastern end, there is a footbridge around half way between the station and Monsal Dale Viaduct anyway. Just use that and move it a little closer to the station.

Even this is quite long. Modelling the station with the real loop west of the station, it would be enormous. A lot depends on how much space you have to work with, of course.

To avoid confusion, you could reasonably rename the station 'Cressbrook'. There are several other names in the Dale you could use as alternatives too.

Please do ignore me if you wish though - I really won't mind!

[Le Corbusier]

Just out of curiosity I drew what might be done to turn this into a reasonable length model railway
I used the early track plan and moved the tunnel much closer to the station, as I suggested previously.

Thank you so much for taking the time to do this. Following on from yours and John's previous comments I believe this is pretty much what I was slowly muddling towards but with the handy addition of the lie by.

For a scenic break at the eastern end, there is a footbridge around half way between the station and Monsal Dale Viaduct anyway. Just use that and move it a little closer to the station.

I had already identified this as the scenic break but never considered the idea of the lie by moving off scene ... excellent!

Even this is quite long. Modelling the station with the real loop west of the station, it would be enormous. A lot depends on how much space you have to work with, of course.

I have seriously limited space and so had already taken the decision to make something in sections that are possible to de-mount and store. I can work on a section up to 2.1m at a time. I was thinking of 3 scenic sections plus fiddle yards either end. My Calcs suggest that between 5 and 6m should do the scenic section. I can set this up in the house on high days or holidays and of course take it elsewhere to set up should the opportunity and inclination present itself.

To avoid confusion, you could reasonably rename the station 'Cressbrook'.

Strangely I had already all but settled on this for the name of the layout ... interestingly according to Bill Hudson, prior to the station itself being decided upon it was called Cressbrook Sidings.

Thanks

Tim

[Armchair Modeller]

I believe this is pretty much what I was slowly muddling towards but with the handy addition of the lie by.

I had already identified this as the scenic break!

Strangely I had already all but settled on this for the name of the layout ... interestingly according to Bill Hudson, prior to the station itself being decided upon it was called Cressbrook Sidings.

Tim

That's spooky

Nevertheless, glad I could be of help

[Le Corbusier]

Another basic question I am afraid.

Is there anyway/where I can find out how a small goods wharf like Monsal Dale might have been worked/shunted?

Presumably there were drop offs of Coal wagons and collection of empties. Would these have come from both directions up and down? Would the wagons have been from dedicated trains or dropped off from larger trains? Collection of goods from Cressbrook Mill or the spar mine above the station would have been relatively small I think (often only 2 or 3 wagons if the photos are typical) I assume that they would have been picked up and added to a larger train? or would they have been picked up by a tank and taken to Millers Dale for shunting and combining? Unfortunately I have no clue at the moment

To get a handle on this I wondered if any one could point me in the direction of a suitable thread/article/book? Its one thing getting the track plan to be realistic, quite another understanding what kind of train movements might have occurred over it.

Thanks

Tim

[Alan Turner]

I believe the wharf was soley used for the output of the mine that can be seen on some photographs (in fact the photo in your first posting). It is behind the station and up the hill.

This means empties in and loaded out. It will have been served by down trains.

Regards

Alan

[grovenor-2685]

This means empties in and loaded out. It will have been served by down trains.

Meaning a down pick up goods, not a dedicated train. The brake and part of the train would be left in the platform while the wagons were dropped, picked or exchanged then the train re-assembled in the platform for departure. Given the gradient there would need to be brakes pinned down on the parked train as well as the brakes on the van.
The controllers would make every effort to do all this in a suitable gap in the traffic as any need to recess the train would mean reversing it over to the Up line, then possibly pulling forward into the layby if it could not wait long enough on the up.
Previous posts have mentioned this and also possible service from Up trains which would only have been done in extremis as wagons would have to be moved from siding to layby or vice versa by pinch bar or horse to make them accessible to an up train.
IMHO running round a few wagons parked on the down between the crossovers, as discussed early in the topic, was very unlikely.
Regards

[Le Corbusier]

I believe the wharf was soley used for the output of the mine that can be seen on some photographs (in fact the photo in your first posting). It is behind the station and up the hill.

This means empties in and loaded out. It will have been served by down trains.

Regards

Alan

I was under the impression from Bill Hudson's section on Monsal Dale that Coal Deliveries were made for the Mill? He mentions that from the construction of the engineering workshop installed in the late 19th century and therefore greater use of the steam engine he approximated an increase from 4-5 wagons per week to 27-28 weekly by 1922.

Is there any reason to believe that this is incorrect? If correct then I wondered if regular daily deliveries would all have come on the down line? and whether they would have been dedicated trains brought in by tank or part of a larger train (same question for the empties)?

[Le Corbusier]

This means empties in and loaded out. It will have been served by down trains.

Meaning a down pick up goods, not a dedicated train. The brake and part of the train would be left in the platform while the wagons were dropped, picked or exchanged then the train re-assembled in the platform for departure. Given the gradient there would need to be brakes pinned down on the parked train as well as the brakes on the van.
The controllers would make every effort to do all this in a suitable gap in the traffic as any need to recess the train would mean reversing it over to the Up line, then possibly pulling forward into the layby if it could not wait long enough on the up.
Previous posts have mentioned this and also possible service from Up trains which would only have been done in extremis as wagons would have to be moved from siding to layby or vice versa by pinch bar or horse to make them accessible to an up train.
IMHO running round a few wagons parked on the down between the crossovers, as discussed early in the topic, was very unlikely.
Regards

Thanks Keith,

That is very helpful.

Cheers

Tim

[Noel]

Based on the quote from Bill Hudson's book, all deliveries would have arrived from Rowsley on the 12:20, and all outbound traffic, including empties, would have been taken to Millers Dale for sorting and onwards movements. Rowsley would have sent the train out with vehicles sorted by destination, to minimise shunting. Outbound traffic would have been removed unsorted, as Millers Dale will do that. By the time the train arrived at Monsal Dale the traffic for that station would be all that was left, together with the traffic collected to go to Millers Dale. Most probably, in my view, Monsal Dale's traffic would have been at the front of the train, as that would be more convenient, but it could have been next to the brake van.

The capacity of the goods siding is unclear, but judging by the photographs is at least 8 13T/16T wagons, but probably not much more. More likely in your period are the smaller 8T or 10T vehicles, but this will not make any real difference to the number. The photos show a loading bank, part of which is at a higher level, presumably to enable tipping of the mine traffic. Unloading coal wagons would normally require ground level access, but I can't tell from the photos whether this exists. Shovelling 'uphill' is very hard work, and would need to be done twice, once from the wagon to the loading bank, and then again into the cart, but this cannot be completely ruled out.

By 1922 there would have been mechanically driven road vehicles capable of carrying the coal from Millers Dale, so an increase in traffic could have led to a change in the station for deliveries. A weekly total of 27-28 wagons implies an average of 4-5 per day for a 6 day week, or 5-6 for a 5 day week.

[Le Corbusier]

Based on the quote from Bill Hudson's book, all deliveries would have arrived from Rowsley on the 12:20, and all outbound traffic, including empties, would have been taken to Millers Dale for sorting and onwards movements. Rowsley would have sent the train out with vehicles sorted by destination, to minimise shunting. Outbound traffic would have been removed unsorted, as Millers Dale will do that. By the time the train arrived at Monsal Dale the traffic for that station would be all that was left, together with the traffic collected to go to Millers Dale. Most probably, in my view, Monsal Dale's traffic would have been at the front of the train, as that would be more convenient, but it could have been next to the brake van.

The capacity of the goods siding is unclear, but judging by the photographs is at least 8 13T/16T wagons, but probably not much more. More likely in your period are the smaller 8T or 10T vehicles, but this will not make any real difference to the number. The photos show a loading bank, part of which is at a higher level, presumably to enable tipping of the mine traffic. Unloading coal wagons would normally require ground level access, but I can't tell from the photos whether this exists. Shovelling 'uphill' is very hard work, and would need to be done twice, once from the wagon to the loading bank, and then again into the cart, but this cannot be completely ruled out.

By 1922 there would have been mechanically driven road vehicles capable of carrying the coal from Millers Dale, so an increase in traffic could have led to a change in the station for deliveries. A weekly total of 27-28 wagons implies an average of 4-5 per day for a 6 day week, or 5-6 for a 5 day week.

Thanks Noel,

I am beginning to enjoy all of this.

The wharf for unloading is I believe a compromise ... it has a raised portion in the centre which I assume was intended for the loading from the quarry. At either end it has a lower level which I assume was for unloading coal etc. How it was worked when the siding was full of coal wagons as we are told became the case following the turn of the century, I can't guess.

Monsal Dale 2 HCC 5.1953.jpg

monsaldale(alan_young2.1976)10.jpg

It will be interesting working out how the weekly pick up and delivery of the 3 to 5 wagons for the quarry might coordinate with the daily deliveries of coal. There must also have been some general goods as well, on a number of the images you see a single closed van sitting in the siding? ... And although there is no evidence, I shall also try and work some deliveries and collections in for the mill ... it should be arguable that they used the station for delivery of raw materials and then for export of finished goods ... after all the siding was originally put in for the Mill before a station was even decided upon.

Regards

Tim

[Andy W]

"I am beginning to enjoy this". How refreshing to read this! It's a common theme I find among fellow Society members. I think this is an image we should try to promote.

[Le Corbusier]

....getting back to the trial loco/coach building exercise, here are a few pictures of where I have got to with the trial painting and lining.

The Barney is pretty much complete now as far as painting and lining is concerned bringing it to the same level as the Clayton 6 wheeler. Neither the tender nor loco chassis have been fixed in place yet and the loco body has slid forward slightly which is why the splashers are not lining up.

DSC_0502.jpeg

DSC_0501.jpeg

DSC_0500.jpeg

DSC_0504.jpeg

DSC_0503.jpeg

I am quite pleased overall, though in the images the orange peel of the varnish coat used to attach the numbers on the cabsides is far more evident than with the naked eye. I must think of a better way to do this. The Clayton has had its transfers added, buffers, couplings and some chains etc. I still need to fix the glazing in place. The Barney cab interior needs finishing off, glass fitting and some coal - then I need to get a crew and some passengers on board.

The finish is still very much out of the paintshop, so next up I am going to try some gentle weathering. Also I will be trying to record how I fit the Protocab battery system and see how it runs ... so should be interesting.

If all goes well I think I will be about ready to start one of the Monsal Dale Locomotives in earnest ... a Johnson 1FT based upon the Craftsman Kit along with some trial waggon building (I have a Bill Bedford etched wagon for a first go).

At the same time I will be trying to get some sort of definitive track plan underway and complete my first trial turnout discussed earlier in the thread.

Sometimes one definitely does look forward to the darker winter evenings!

Tim

[jon price]

Very nice paint job. If the rest of the layout is as good as this it will be magnificent