Edwinstowe Station... LNER 1930's (ex-LD&ECR, ex-GCR)

[t-b-g]

37 minutes ago, gingerangles said:

 

Thanks for the reassurance @t-b-g, kinda what I was hoping... I do want to build locos and stock, but equally I do also want to get stuff running so having some RTR options is good for me.

 

Are you at the stage with your build where you have given much thought to running schedules, if indeed you're planning to have schedules that is?

 

I have ideas about what services would work into the station but nothing more than that. They will all be trains that in reality worked into Sheffield Midland from the North side, either from Doncaster, Barnsley or via the Sheffield District Railway from Langwith Junction. One such service will be the the Sheffield to Edwinstowe one that will also appear on your layout!

[gingerangles]

Sounds like a good plan to me 👍

Would the Sheffield-Edwinstowe service been a LMS service @t-b-g?

So far, in terms of passenger services, I've got on my list:

Chesterfield-Lincoln

Sheffield-Edwinstowe, terminating.

Mansfield (Nottingham)-Edwinstowe, terminating.

Sheffield-Lincoln.

The DIDO.

Workers services.

 

Possible further afield destinations: Leicester, Rugby, London (London Extension).

East Coast.

Grantham, Peterborough, York (ECML).

Manchester, Doncaster, Leeds.

 

Thinking the latter may enable me to crowbar some larger/faster express services in.

 

 

 

[Orion]

Don't forget royal trains to the Dukeries and Saturday excursions to Sherwood Forest

 

There was a proposal for an Ollerton to Newark line, by the LD&ECR and earlier, so that might offer other services, including diversions from the ECML

 

In reality, there would be a long stream of coal trains, with just the odd passenger train squeezed in from time to time.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, gingerangles said:

Sounds like a good plan to me 👍

Would the Sheffield-Edwinstowe service been a LMS service @t-b-g?

So far, in terms of passenger services, I've got on my list:

Chesterfield-Lincoln

Sheffield-Edwinstowe, terminating.

Mansfield (Nottingham)-Edwinstowe, terminating.

Sheffield-Lincoln.

The DIDO.

Workers services.

 

Possible further afield destinations: Leicester, Rugby, London (London Extension).

East Coast.

Grantham, Peterborough, York (ECML).

Manchester, Doncaster, Leeds.

 

Thinking the latter may enable me to crowbar some larger/faster express services in.

 

 

 

 

There is a lot of information about the passenger services in George Dow's Great Central Trilogy, part 3. Sadly, for you, it doesn't cover the LNER/LMS period. There is a little bit more in Chris Booth's Volume 1 book, which does mention some services in later times.

 

The "termination" at Edwinstowe was really more of a reversal, in that some trains from Sheffield to Mansfield ran to either Warsop or Edwinstowe where they reversed to carry on their journey. In pre-grouping times, these were officially Midland trains, worked by Midland locos but used LD&ECR stock, with the revenue split between the two companies. Using Midland stock is a "modeller's licence" move on my part!

 

For a short while, commencing in 1903, the Midland ran an express service which ran from Sheffield to Lincoln and carried a through carriage from Manchester to Harwich. There is also mention of a through carriage for Marylebone that was introduced by the GCR in 1910. The return working was via a slip coach, which was detached at Leicester.

 

It is interesting that in LDECR times, the "main line" was described as being from Lincoln to Sheffield with the line to Chesterfield being "the Chesterfield branch".

 

The services you list look pretty reasonable to me, except that the Sheffield to Edwinstowe and Edwinstowe to Mansfield are really a Sheffield to Mansfield service, which reverses.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Orion said:

Don't forget royal trains to the Dukeries and Saturday excursions to Sherwood Forest

 

There was a proposal for an Ollerton to Newark line, by the LD&ECR and earlier, so that might offer other services, including diversions from the ECML

 

In reality, there would be a long stream of coal trains, with just the odd passenger train squeezed in from time to time.

 

I believe that proposed route was the basis for the famous fictional "Borchester Market" layout.

[gingerangles]

1 hour ago, Orion said:

Don't forget royal trains to the Dukeries and Saturday excursions to Sherwood Forest

 

There was a proposal for an Ollerton to Newark line, by the LD&ECR and earlier, so that might offer other services, including diversions from the ECML

 

In reality, there would be a long stream of coal trains, with just the odd passenger train squeezed in from time to time.

 

Thanks @Orion... I didn't know if the royal affair carried on into the late 20's 30's but I guess it could have so I'll have to look it up. I forget to include specials I suppose... like you said - royal trains, race days and there were plenty of costal excursions.

 

I plan to have a 'greater than in reality' number of passenger services as in my version of history The Dukeries Route did take off and the line saw plenty of passenger services 😎

 

As for freight, I've been giving that some thought and looks like I'll be able to make this a plentiful affair... there is the obvious coal trains making their way through - really looking forward to getting some of these up and running and thinking along the line of 'O' and 'Q' class hauled.  There were also plenty of fish trains in the area so that will also be a focus.  Beyond that obviously there will be the local goods - I'm yet to get my head round pick-up/drop-off goods but my research would lead me to believe that Edwinstowe would have expected rail traffic for cattle, post, meat, coal, fruit & veg... there was also a fireworks industry in the town "Geo. Pinder" (could make for some interesting traffic), wine & spirits, etc.

 

Other local industries and potential sources of rail traffic - Engineering firms in Chesterfield (Chesterfield Tube Works, Markham & Co.) & Sheffield, Sweets (Trebor factory), pottery, shoes/leather, Raleigh bikes, lace, cotton.

 

One of the reasons I chose Edwinstowe was because it looked like a sizeable station with plenty of platforms and good sized goods facilities (even if in reality they never found there potential) so I want to make the most of the facilities.

 

It is all quite overwhelming in some ways - just trying to make lists and zone-in on a few ideas and try to find the period-correct locos & stock.

[gingerangles]

32 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

There is a lot of information about the passenger services in George Dow's Great Central Trilogy, part 3. Sadly, for you, it doesn't cover the LNER/LMS period. There is a little bit more in Chris Booth's Volume 1 book, which does mention some services in later times.

 

The "termination" at Edwinstowe was really more of a reversal, in that some trains from Sheffield to Mansfield ran to either Warsop or Edwinstowe where they reversed to carry on their journey. In pre-grouping times, these were officially Midland trains, worked by Midland locos but used LD&ECR stock, with the revenue split between the two companies. Using Midland stock is a "modeller's licence" move on my part!

 

For a short while, commencing in 1903, the Midland ran an express service which ran from Sheffield to Lincoln and carried a through carriage from Manchester to Harwich. There is also mention of a through carriage for Marylebone that was introduced by the GCR in 1910. The return working was via a slip coach, which was detached at Leicester.

 

It is interesting that in LDECR times, the "main line" was described as being from Lincoln to Sheffield with the line to Chesterfield being "the Chesterfield branch".

 

The services you list look pretty reasonable to me, except that the Sheffield to Edwinstowe and Edwinstowe to Mansfield are really a Sheffield to Mansfield service, which reverses.

 

I looked at getting the George Dow books but I'd held off as I felt I was getting reference material overload 🤣

I have invested in Vol's 1&2 of Chris Booths books though which are pretty good as you say. 

I see what you mean re the termination... I suppose from an Edwinstowe perspective you're right and they just reverse... Where they go who knows 😁

[gingerangles]

I've also been trying to plan the use of the Bay Platform... in real life it must have lasted 5 mins as even early track plans/maps show it gone however I want to keep in included.

 

My knowledge on such things is limited but think the following assumtions maybe reasonable?

 

*Its short length would obviously mean short trains.

*It has to be accessed indirectly.

*It faces out onto the up line in the direction of Lincoln and has a 'proper' signal.

*It has a head shut.

*It can only be accessed by reversing back off the up line or by reversing off the down line then into the Bay (perhaps after running round?).

 

What would be the most likely operation? 

Firstly - would it be potentially used for parcels?

Through passenger service arriving UP would reverse in to clear the main before carrying on?

Am I right in thinking a UP to DOWN reversing service would have been unlikely as the train can't leave the platform in the UP direction?

A DOWN reversing service... perhaps alighting at the down main platform before moving over to the Bay?

 

I was thinking this might present an appropriate opportunity to have an early LNER railcar running?

 

[Enterprisingwestern]

8 hours ago, gingerangles said:

I've also been trying to plan the use of the Bay Platform... in real life it must have lasted 5 mins as even early track plans/maps show it gone however I want to keep in included.

 

My knowledge on such things is limited but think the following assumtions maybe reasonable?

 

*Its short length would obviously mean short trains.

*It has to be accessed indirectly.

*It faces out onto the up line in the direction of Lincoln and has a 'proper' signal.

*It has a head shut.

*It can only be accessed by reversing back off the up line or by reversing off the down line then into the Bay (perhaps after running round?).

 

What would be the most likely operation? 

Firstly - would it be potentially used for parcels?

Through passenger service arriving UP would reverse in to clear the main before carrying on?

Am I right in thinking a UP to DOWN reversing service would have been unlikely as the train can't leave the platform in the UP direction?

A DOWN reversing service... perhaps alighting at the down main platform before moving over to the Bay?

 

I was thinking this might present an appropriate opportunity to have an early LNER railcar running?

 

 

Laundry van platform?

 

Mike.

[gingerangles]

2 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Laundry van platform?

 

Mike.

 

Yeah could well be 👍

[gingerangles]

Mimic panel coming along... I think I glued a printout of the plan to several pieces of card/wood and tried to drill the holes several times, binning it several times more before I managed this...

 

Still gluing obviously... some testing to do then I'll decide if I'm happy with the print/led positions.

 

 

 

[gingerangles]

2 additions to the project to kick me off with correct era running 😀

 

 

[gingerangles]

And we have lights!

 

 

[Enterprisingwestern]

6 hours ago, gingerangles said:

And we have lights!

 

 

 

 

If you go no further I'm well impressed!

 

Mike.

[gingerangles]

1 hour ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

 

If you go no further I'm well impressed!

 

Mike.

 

Thanks Mike, it's not perfect and it took me some getting there but it does look well. Some of my struggles have been my novice modelling skills (for example the penultimate version I varnished with AK Matte using a brush and it took all the print up and smudged everything 🤦‍♂️). This one I used spray varnish and its OK but I can always reprint the diagram and go again or simply tweak some of the holes with a file.

 

Really impressed with the DCC Concepts LEDs, the look very smart and are easy to wire and operate with DC. 

There are extra bits you need for the crossovers which aren't obvious... Y connectors for the light cables as you have 3 lights connected to 2 feeds (fairly obvious) but also in these circumstances you also need a small extra cable as the connections on the Y connectors are all female as are the connections on the control board.

The only downside to the system in my eyes is the size of the LEDs, they require a huge hole of 7mm and the diameter of the bit you see is 9mm. This means you are quite limited as to how compact you can make the diagram because (i) how physically close together the lights can be and (ii) how prominant they are means your lines on the diagram need to be a good thicknesses.

[gingerangles]

Mocking up the fiddle yard up line entrance down line exit... Still open to constructive criticism 😃

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm trying to arrange 2 fiddle yard routes that only go through either straight point legs or 'express' curved legs on each of the up and down routes. 

I think I can get 12 lines in total and plan to use the space at each end for sidings, programming track etc I reckon.

Edited May 31 by gingerangles

[gingerangles]

Well... all in all a bit of a crap weekend layout wise. 1st real period of sustained heat on the house and although the edwinstowe side hasn't moved it appears the fiddle yard 'underlay' I've used isn't going to cut the mustard. I'd tried using builders 'floor protection sheets' which, on the face of it, seem great... large and cut the noise down loads but the glue between the two (plastic) sheets simply hadn't set it seems and started to bubble. Add to that my literal merry-go-round fiddle yard design and its left me a few steps backwards and somewhat frustrated. 

 

 

Typically the glue holding the sheets to the baseboard is solid 🤦‍♂️

 

Will be a boards outside and sand down job I fear. 🤬

[gingerangles]

Well, in between scraping back those plastic sheets, I'm trying to decide if the printed card platform edges will stand up to photograph / the test of time.  I seem to have introduced some slight undulations as I have glued the card to the timber.  I think all said and done it will be OK, approximately half of what can be seen will be covered by ballast and if I go to the extend of modelling the point rodding this will further cover up this face.

 

 

I'll (hopefully) be moving on to worrying about the paving atop the brickwork soon, picked up some only Slaters (I think) platform kits at the weekend and wondering if cutting the slbs into strips would be workable... Don't think I'd have quite enough as it stands but may be able to pick up others.  My initial thoughts were to go printed card again but I think this would benefit from something a little more strudy.

 

 

 

Pleased with the look of the Q6, stands well.  Although looking at these snaps there seems to be a little bow in the footplate - one to look at later.  I'm planning to add a Zemo sound decoder to this and following a bit of research (and assuming the tech is up to the hype) want to standardise the fleet on a decoder type.

[St Enodoc]

19 minutes ago, gingerangles said:

Well, in between scraping back those plastic sheets, I'm trying to decide if the printed card platform edges will stand up to photograph / the test of time.  I seem to have introduced some slight undulations as I have glued the card to the timber.  I think all said and done it will be OK, approximately half of what can be seen will be covered by ballast and if I go to the extend of modelling the point rodding this will further cover up this face.

 

 

I'll (hopefully) be moving on to worrying about the paving atop the brickwork soon, picked up some only Slaters (I think) platform kits at the weekend and wondering if cutting the slbs into strips would be workable... Don't think I'd have quite enough as it stands but may be able to pick up others.  My initial thoughts were to go printed card again but I think this would benefit from something a little more strudy.

 

 

 

Pleased with the look of the Q6, stands well.  Although looking at these snaps there seems to be a little bow in the footplate - one to look at later.  I'm planning to add a Zemo sound decoder to this and following a bit of research (and assuming the tech is up to the hype) want to standardise the fleet on a decoder type.

Might be an optical illusion but the platforms look very close to the train. I'd be looking for the edges to be a good 20mm from the track centre line.

[gingerangles]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

Might be an optical illusion but the platforms look very close to the train. I'd be looking for the edges to be a good 20mm from the track centre line.

 

They are tight to be honest - I had marked out the platform edge using a pencil mounted about 5 mm off the side of a van for the timber... probably about 10 mm all in all.  This then comes closer to the track by the thickness of the card / brick corbel(?) and will again with the paving overhang.  I'd tried to get it close on the assumption it would have been closer in real life than you'd manage in model form anyway but I'll have a measure and see how close I'll be to the 20 mm you mentioned @St Enodoc, Thanks 👍

[t-b-g]

http://www.swithland-signal-works.co.uk/plans/13_PLATFORM_WHARF_WALLS.jpg

 

Maybe useful at this time. It is MS&LR rather than LD&ECR but the dimensions won't be much different.

 

The other useful thing to remember is that if you are measuring from the rail and working in 16.5mm gauge, you need to make an adjustment and add on just over 1mm otherwise your platform ends up too close to the trains! 

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

http://www.swithland-signal-works.co.uk/plans/13_PLATFORM_WHARF_WALLS.jpg

 

Maybe useful at this time. It is MS&LR rather than LD&ECR but the dimensions won't be much different.

 

The other useful thing to remember is that if you are measuring from the rail and working in 16.5mm gauge, you need to make an adjustment and add on just over 1mm otherwise your platform ends up too close to the trains! 

That's right, Tony - which is why I quoted a dimension from the track centre line!

 

If anyone does follow those very useful drawings, be aware that the dimensions are from the centre of the nearest rail head and, implicitly, apply to straight track so the dimension from the track centre line to the coping is 2' 4.25" (half the track gauge) + 1.375" (half the width of BS95 rail) + 2' 3.5" (shown on drawing) = 4' 8.625" or 18.875mm on straight track in 4mm scale. As above, I round this up to 20mm for simplicity.

[Orion]

mining subsidence is a good excuse for wobbly brickwork.

[gingerangles]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

http://www.swithland-signal-works.co.uk/plans/13_PLATFORM_WHARF_WALLS.jpg

 

Maybe useful at this time. It is MS&LR rather than LD&ECR but the dimensions won't be much different.

 

The other useful thing to remember is that if you are measuring from the rail and working in 16.5mm gauge, you need to make an adjustment and add on just over 1mm otherwise your platform ends up too close to the trains! 

 

Thanks @t-b-g that's really useful... 2 fold as it gives the corbel dimensions and paving edge dims 👍

 

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

That's right, Tony - which is why I quoted a dimension from the track centre line!

 

If anyone does follow those very useful drawings, be aware that the dimensions are from the centre of the nearest rail head and, implicitly, apply to straight track so the dimension from the track centre line to the coping is 2' 4.25" (half the track gauge) + 1.375" (half the width of BS95 rail) + 2' 3.5" (shown on drawing) = 4' 8.625" or 18.875mm on straight track in 4mm scale. As above, I round this up to 20mm for simplicity.

 

I'm pretty straight in my scenario 😂

I'm assuming eyeing up with rolling stock will likely give me more rather than less of a prototypical gap anyway, all good reference info mind.

 

1 hour ago, Orion said:

mining subsidence is a good excuse for wobbly brickwork.

 

Why didn't I think of that!? 😂 thanks @Orion

[gingerangles]

What would be usefully applied to that diagram would be the loading gauge (if that's the correct thing) or maximum carriage dimensions to give a rolling stock to platform edge dimension (minimum that is). 😀

 

I'd be happy to super impose if there was such a thing???