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

[RobM]

I thought I would post some advice rather than ask a question for the first time on this thread.

I am uncertain who reads this thread, apart from those more experienced and helpful souls who have been kind enough to give encouragement and a gentle prompt or prod here and there when needed or requested. I don't know how interesting, boring or annoying it might be.

Good advice Tim......when I returned to model railways and jumping into P4 I had ambitious projects in mind. As each one failed I went onto the next only to fail again......happened 3 times and 3 projects scrapped. The Standard Gauge Workshop came along and was my saviour with the introduction of Manston Brewery and later Mount Woodville. Both have quite simple track work and both have provided a learning curve and I am still learning as I go onto the colliery project.
I'm sure that the majority of the forum followers are following your thread, I certainly am and to see just how many are following just check the number of views before and after a new post is submitted. Certainly the input is interesting, boring or annoying...certainly not
Cheers.....Rob

[Le Corbusier]

I thought I would post some advice rather than ask a question for the first time on this thread.

I am uncertain who reads this thread, apart from those more experienced and helpful souls who have been kind enough to give encouragement and a gentle prompt or prod here and there when needed or requested. I don't know how interesting, boring or annoying it might be.

Good advice Tim......when I returned to model railways and jumping into P4 I had ambitious projects in mind. As each one failed I went onto the next only to fail again......happened 3 times and 3 projects scrapped. The Standard Gauge Workshop came along and was my saviour with the introduction of Manston Brewery and later Mount Woodville. Both have quite simple track work and both have provided a learning curve and I am still learning as I go onto the colliery project.
I'm sure that the majority of the forum followers are following your thread, I certainly am and to see just how many are following just check the number of views before and after a new post is submitted. Certainly the input is interesting, boring or annoying...certainly not
Cheers.....Rob

Interestingly, I have just spent an enjoyable half hour re-reading the Manston Thread .... hadn't realized it was your first successful P4 layout that sets the bar pretty high

[Allan Goodwillie]

Hi Tim,

I am all for building test pieces especially for those just starting. In the early days I experimented quite a bit especially with track making and building locos using turned Romfords! It is unusual I admit,to build a test rig the size of Grayrigg.

The starters group at the moment has quite a few who are intending a test track before the layout construction. It builds up both skills and allows for trial and error and re-thinking and should lead to confidence when the layout proper gets built. Part of the purpose of the group is to avoid some of the pitfalls.

I would say however that the perfect layout has never been built, despite what magazine articles suggest. There have been some beauties over the years and many of them exhibited, but if you dig a little you will find that most have some flaws. This is where when exhibiting a layout the operators are very important - different operators can make a layout seem like a jewel or a pig at a show. Could give you all sorts of instances.

Layouts can also be designed to be more robust at shows, having said that I am experimenting with servos on the new layout and will be testing a few theories directly on the layout. If they don't work properly I will whip them out and I have conventional motors which I can use.

I have not put any photos of the Wemyss layout up last couple of weeks, due to it being Christmas and New Year and less people likely to be reading however progress has been good during this period and the first train run on Saturday. I will try to take some photos of the track when I get the layout up again as I have the boards dismantled for the fitting of operating rods etc.

[Le Corbusier]

Just for the sake of completeness, I think I can now finally put to bed the debate regarding the position of the signal beyond the lie by loop prior to Cressbrook Tunnel.

Fortuitously I came across this illustration. When comparing with the map and the later illustration it suggests to me that, because we can't see the tunnel mouth in the black and white photo it must be tucked back behind the final curve in the later photo not too far away from where the drystone wall descends to track level. That would place it a fair bit further on than indicated on the OS map - perhaps where the arrow with the figures 279 is pointing. It is also interesting to note how much more curved the line appears than the plan shows.

Cressbrook Tunel Signal.jpeg

Monsal Dale Signal Positions.jpg

Siding photo.jpg

[shipbadger]

Tim,

Not unusual for map makers to straighten out curves. The former boundary to my property had a distinct curve, but the OS map showed it as a straight line. I suspect that before the use of satellites there were only so many points that could be measured and when they came to draw the map the draughtsman just connected the various points in whatever looked the most obvious way.

Tony Comber

[Allan Goodwillie]

Hi Tim,

Nice photo, but I would not guarantee that was the position of the signal during MR days. Signals were often moved for various operational reasons. It may have been that the signal was moved further down the line because of train lengths or line speeds etc. Grayrigg was a classic example which I could go into the detail, but all of the signals were moved between the LNWR days and the end of the second world war and yet it was a small country station on the main line.

Tony's comment is also apposite, the OS of Thornton Junction has an important crossover missing from the junction itself, so mistakes were often made despite photos etc., so you cannot assume everything is just as it appears.

So caution is still the word, however a really nice find.

[Le Corbusier]

Alan,

You may be right. But the marked position doesn't feel credible. The longest train that could access the lie by and still be held at the signal as indicated would be in the region of 350ft. See attached plan using the handy measuring facility. Now allowing 18ft over the buffers for a typical pre war mineral wagon and subtracting for the loco (Johnson 2f - 54ft) and guards van, that would give a maximum train length of 15 wagons I vauguely remember reading somewhere that the permissible length due to the gradient for trains was 28 wagons ... though I am not certain about this - I will have to have a search and see if I can find where this was noted. Message to self ... take referenced notes

1898 Monsal Dale.jpg

[Noel]

A reasonable expectation would be that the distance between the points and the starter would be more than the length of the loop, because otherwise the capacity of the loop cannot all be used, as you imply. I note that different parts of the map have different colour backgrounds, so is it possible that two maps are involved, the right hand one updated to show the loop, the left hand one not updated and showing the original position of the starter?

[Le Corbusier]

A reasonable expectation would be that the distance between the points and the starter would be more than the length of the loop, because otherwise the capacity of the loop cannot all be used, as you imply. I note that different parts of the map have different colour backgrounds, so is it possible that two maps are involved, the right hand one updated to show the loop, the left hand one not updated and showing the original position of the starter?

That was my thinking Noel. The map extracts are both from the same year but separate sheets. Allan is certainly correct about moving signals ... you can see by the consecutive OS maps from 1887 to 1898 to 1919. On the 1887 map no signals are marked on the line at all ... but I think we can assume that the position would have been different anyway as the lie by had not been constructed at this point. By 1898 the signal is in the position which I feel may be wrong given the length of the lie by. Moving forward to 1919 it has moved much closer to the tunnel mouth. From the early photos I have it was certainly in this position by 1911 as there is evidence of a white painted back ground at the tunnel on the official photo.

Maybe the 1898 position is correct, but it was moved quite quickly as the size of trains increased .... but this would seem odd. It is also interesting that the position has moved back from the tunnel entrance for the much later 1962 photo? Perhaps the lie by has gone by this point as in the track photo in colour?

1878.jpg

1897.jpg

1919.jpg

[Philip Hall]

Not to do with the maps etc but:

I am no MR or LMS expert, but the caption to the black and white picture looks wrong. Counting the wheels, the leading engine is a 2-6-4T...?

Philip

[Le Corbusier]

Not to do with the maps etc but:

I am no MR or LMS expert, but the caption to the black and white picture looks wrong. Counting the wheels, the leading engine is a 2-6-4T...?

Philip

Eagle eyed I think? A quick web search turned up the following Back Track entry

LMS Fairburn 2-6-4T no 42228, Locomotive

So this would suggest 42228 was a 2-6-4T

[Phil O]

Tim

Have you looked on NLS maps site as for some of the 25 inch maps there is a seamless tiled version available.

Phil

[Le Corbusier]

Tim

Have you looked on NLS maps site as for some of the 25 inch maps there is a seamless tiled version available.

Phil

Hi Phil,

Yes I am aware of that function (measuring facility on the earlier post is using the tiled option) ... but found that to compare the different dates I needed to access the independent sheets ... perhaps I am doing something wrong.

Tim

[Le Corbusier]

I am currently looking to make up a set of Bill Bedford MR carriage 6 wheel irons as per the attachment (photo from Wizard Models web site). I am familiar with the springing system but was wondering if anyone could advise regarding the brake lever configuration. I can see how the triangular struts locate in the brakes themselves and how the breaks are built up, but how the rest of the support struts etc locate is puzzling me.

If anyone had a photo of a made up example, or there happened to be a drawing which showed exactly what I am building it would be helpful. My pack came with bogie instructions which don't help in this instance (or I am being thick).

Given that my layout has/will have only very gentle curves, am I right to assume that I can fix the bases rigidly to the base of the carriage?

I would appreciate a steer.

Edit ... here is a scan of my actual etch which differs from the Wizard Models image. I have highlighted the parts I am unsure of and how they fit.

Bill Bedword MR 6 wheel carriage irons.jpeg

[billbedford]

There is a drawing of a Bain bogie on page 228 of Lacey and Dow (vol2). This includes a section that shows the brake rigging arrangement. The rigging for a six wheeler would be similar but attached to the frame members. Note there were no brakes on the centre axle.

Luckily all this stuff will be hidden behind the wheels.....

You can always fix the w-iron fret to the floor of the carriage -- see this blog entry

[Le Corbusier]

There is a drawing of a Bain bogie on page 228 of Lacey and Dow (vol2). This includes a section that shows the brake rigging arrangement. The rigging for a six wheeler would be similar but attached to the frame members. Note there were no brakes on the centre axle.

Luckily all this stuff will be hidden behind the wheels.....

You can always fix the w-iron fret to the floor of the carriage -- see this blog entry

Thanks Bill.

[Le Corbusier]

I am beginning to think in a little more detail about lever frames for Monsal Dale and its signal box. Could anybody point me in the right direction to begin my research .. appropriate threads/articles/books.

There are two things initially I want to do. Firstly to develop a proper understanding of how the levers and the frame actually work - including terminology - so starting from a pretty basic level.

Secondly, to understand what the society frame consists of for operation and how it goes together.

I observed the various lever frames in operation at Scaleforum this year for quite a period of time and have to admit to being somewhat mesmerised ... but unfortunately with my current state of knowledge all was a bit smoke and mirrors. Having (I think) got topside of the point actuation and the rodding, I am hoping this will be the last piece in the jigsaw.

My current goal will be to use some form of mechanical actuation, using the society levers & mimicking what I model in the box (hopefully).

[John Palmer]

Three links that may help as a point of departure for your researches:

https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1195
https://www.signalbox.org/frames/mid.htm
http://www.tlr.ltd.uk/sigbox/home.eb

Was the Monsal Dale frame tumbler or tappet locked? Quite a few miniature frames seem to have been made that employ tappet locking, but I haven't yet seen a tumbler locked frame in miniature. Could yours be the first?

[Le Corbusier]

Three links that may help as a point of departure for your researches:

https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1195
https://www.signalbox.org/frames/mid.htm
http://www.tlr.ltd.uk/sigbox/home.eb

Was the Monsal Dale frame tumbler or tappet locked? Quite a few miniature frames seem to have been made that employ tappet locking, but I haven't yet seen a tumbler locked frame in miniature. Could yours be the first?

I will try and find out once I have followed your links and can talk coherently Thanks john ... much appreciated

[Julian Roberts]

I am currently looking to make up a set of Bill Bedford MR carriage 6 wheel irons as per the attachment (photo from Wizard Models web site).

Given that my layout has/will have only very gentle curves, am I right to assume that I can fix the bases rigidly to the base of the carriage?

Tim I am just dipping in here and I may have missed previous context, if so apologies. But I just wanted to say that 6 wheel carriages have frequently been referred to on various threads as very easily causing running grief, and I would suggest, humbly as I have not yet built any, that if you mean by the above there wouldn't be any suspension at all you might regret that. I assume you probably don't mean this however! Just one thread of many on the subject included a discussion between me and Will, towards its end.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=5293&hilit=Articulated+Beams&start=75

[Le Corbusier]

I am currently looking to make up a set of Bill Bedford MR carriage 6 wheel irons as per the attachment (photo from Wizard Models web site).

Given that my layout has/will have only very gentle curves, am I right to assume that I can fix the bases rigidly to the base of the carriage?

Tim I am just dipping in here and I may have missed previous context, if so apologies. But I just wanted to say that 6 wheel carriages have frequently been referred to on various threads as very easily causing running grief, and I would suggest, humbly as I have not yet built any, that if you mean by the above there wouldn't be any suspension at all you might regret that. I assume you probably don't mean this however! Just one thread of many on the subject included a discussion between me and Will, towards its end.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=5293&hilit=Articulated+Beams&start=75

Thanks Julian,

Bill's wheel irons come with a spring wire .. so yes there is suspension. My question revolved around the potential need for lateral movement of the centre pair of wheels as the wheel base is relatively long. As on Monsaldale I will be looking at an end to end layout with fiddle yards and the scenic section with only very gentle curving lines, I was hoping I would get away without any movement relying on the slight slop of the wheels themselves. I still believe that this will work. However, Bill has kindly pointed me towards his blog entry which suggests a work around should I find that I do after all need to accommodate lateral movement.

Tim

[Julian Roberts]

Great stuff Tim - I am embarrassed that I even thought the point was worth making. Somewhere or other on the Forum there is some spreadsheet to work out sideplay required with or without gauge widening I think. Probably less relevant than actual practical experience...?!

A friend has made an interlocking lever frame for his layout Kettlewell which will be at Scalefour North. I'm sure he will be keen to talk to you about it if you're there. It's Midland Railway too! It works perfectly by the way.

[Le Corbusier]

Great stuff Tim - I am embarrassed that I even thought the point was worth making. Somewhere or other on the Forum there is some spreadsheet to work out sideplay required with or without gauge widening I think. Probably less relevant than actual practical experience...?!

A friend has made an interlocking lever frame for his layout Kettlewell which will be at Scalefour North. I'm sure he will be keen to talk to you about it if you're there. It's Midland Railway too! It works perfectly by the way.

Thanks Julian,

I spent a happy time observing Kettlewell at Scaleforum whilst chatting to Allan Goodwillie and Chris Gough. The lever frame was fascinating, but as is so often the case was not at the forefront of what I was looking at/discussing at the time ... damn it If you happened to have any detailed images of the mechanism you could post ... that would be much appreciated. I have pretty much decided I would like to build an interlocking frame for Monsaldale and also see if I can use the levers to drive a mechanical rodding system. I am watching Colin's thread avidly on this count (as well as many other counts) to see what he has planned.

Tim

[Colin Parks]

Hi Tim,

Oh yes! I am going to have a lever frame for my test track and it will be a Society one. Howard Bolton very kindly worked out a signalling diagram for me, which requires 17 levers, including point locks (plus one lever for a siding, which seems easier to include on the frame).

All the best,

Colin

[Julian Roberts]

Tim I can put you in touch with John if you like as he has said to me he'd be happy to help you, but he doesn't "do" Forums. I wonder though if the fact that while his interlocking is mechanical, all the controls from it to the points and signals are electric, would lessen the relevance to you?