7mm Sedbergh Town

Discussion in 'Layout Progress' started by Stuart D, 18 October 2020.

  1. Stuart D

    Stuart D Member

    As referred to in my introductory postings, here's the plan of my layout. I'll try and sort out some meaningful photos to follow....
    Not sure whether to explain the "back story" to the plan; I know some people find that sort of thing interesting, others not so - don't want to bore anyone!
    Anyway, this is a start at least.
    Last edited: 4 November 2020
  2. John Duffy

    John Duffy Western Thunderer

    Stuart, why don't you give us the back story and those of us who are interested will read it. Others can skip past, but I find it useful to know how others develop their ideas.

  3. Alan

    Alan Western Thunderer

    I agree with John, I love a good back story.
  4. OzzyO

    OzzyO Western Thunderer

    I also like the back story of any layout, what gauge are going to build the layout in? 'O' normal, 'O' fine (31.5mm) or S7.?

    I'm based in BiF so depending on how close we maybe able to meet up.
  5. Stuart D

    Stuart D Member

    The layout is built to Fine standard, with a very slight modification to reduce V-crossing flangeway to reduce the 'dreaded drop'. I have one loco with back-to-back of 29.4mm (don't ask!) which rules out 0-MF that I would probably otherwise have opted for. But all the pointwork in the fiddleyard is either Peco or Marcway, there was no way I was going to start making hand-built pointwork for the FY. Some of the sidings use Peco points, otherwise the station pointwork is hand-built.
    I haven't forgotten about the back story, just been a bit distracted.....
    Rob Pulham and AdeMoore like this.
  6. Stuart D

    Stuart D Member

    The back story.....
    Decades ago I got interested in railway history in the north of England, and in particular the various madcap schemes of the 1845/46 Railway Mania. As a result I came across the proposed Liverpool, Manchester & Newcastle-upon-Tyne Junction Railway which planned a line from Preston along the whole of the Ribble valley and tunnelling through the hills to get to Hawes and thence across to Darlington ; with connections at various points to existing or planned lines. The company merged with another scheme, adopted their slightly different route, and received Parliamentary approval, but of course nothing was actually built.
    My assumptions start with a 'what-if' the Act had authorised the original route and that it had actually been built. Second 'what-if' is that local pressure, which did exist at various stages throughout the 19th century, saw a branch line built from Hawes down Garsdale to Sedbergh, and a little later a line continued to a southward-facing connection with the Ingleton line to the south of the real Sedbergh station. Later still a narrow gauge line was built up Dentdale to serve the various quarries; and of course also to serve my interest in all things narrow-gauge!
    Hope that's enough to give a general flavour of where I'm coming from - ask away if anything doesn't make sense.
  7. Stuart D

    Stuart D Member

    It occurs to me that I should have added a bit more to the back story....
    My assumptions are that the LMNJR remained independent until 1923, but that services had been operated variously by the MR, NER and L&YR. My layout is based in the late 1930s and assumes that all services south (mainline) and west (branchline) of Hawes are operated by the LMS. This in part due to the fact that I have acquired plenty of appropriate LMS stock, but no LNER. If I had been starting now with no stock then I might well have opted for a different assumption, based on joint operations.
    And if I'd been modelling in a smaller scale I might well have been tempted to model Hawes (LMNJR!) as a station where LMS/LNER loco changes took place - for considerable operational interest...... But that would be a quite different "what-if".
    Rob Pulham likes this.
  8. Stuart D

    Stuart D Member

    Had another go at the weekend to get some photos of the layout. Thought it best to start with general shots that will add to the track plan in post #1 above. Here's one showing the fiddle yard and the scenic mainline section on the extreme right. Obviously I haven't made any start at all on the scenery of this section - still trying to get the station area to look less like a modeller's workbench!
    The reason for the extensive fiddle yard is that I wanted to be able get all of my stock out and on the layout, permanently! Most damage occurs to our stock from frequent handling, and this approach is intended to counter that.
    I'm not sure about file size limits for uploads so I'll just attach the one photo for starters.....
    Last edited: 2 November 2020
  9. Stuart D

    Stuart D Member

    And another... This time of the station side of the layout. The track on the extreme left will in due course be hidden behind a backscene; as you can see on the track plan its sole purpose is to enable trains to get from the FY to the scenic mainline section without going through the station, which wouldn't "fit" with the geography of the location.
    Last edited: 2 November 2020
  10. daifly

    daifly Western Thunderer

    Hi Stuart. Please could you post photos at full size rather than as thumbnails. Thumbnails are a PITA to view. You can edit your original posts rather than creating new posts.
    Pencarrow, Dan Randall and Dog Star like this.
  11. Stuart D

    Stuart D Member

    I was always led to believe that it was better to post as thumbnails, given that you only have to left click on the photo for it to appear as full screen (more or less). But I'm happy to edit them if full size is preferred on WT.
    Dan Randall and BrushType4 like this.
  12. Dog Star

    Dog Star Western Thunderer

    And the track plan as well please.
  13. Stuart D

    Stuart D Member

    I'd already looked at that and discovered that you don't have the choice with PDFs :(
  14. daifly

    daifly Western Thunderer

    Correct. Here it is as a .png:
    Hope that's OK Stuart. We like big pictures here!
  15. Stuart D

    Stuart D Member

    That's fine, Dave. Thank you. When I had a moment I'd have gone back to Templot and seen if I could output the sketchboard plan, probably as a jpg, but png is just as good.
  16. simond

    simond Western Thunderer

    I do like the idea of keeping the stock on the track, to avoid handling. Will you put some kind of dust cover over the fiddle yard?

  17. Stuart D

    Stuart D Member

    I'm not planning to; there's just too much to cover and where would the covers go when not in use? If they were hinged down they would prevent me getting under the baseboard to the mainline section if I needed to, and if hinged up they would obscure a view of the mainline section and probably need a lot of carpentry to support them when open. I did put a cover over the engine store area of the FY to reduce dust on the locos at least, but in truth that is not really necessary as I subsequently decided that I was not going to carpet the floor, and the painted chipboard flooring produces very little dust. So it isn't really a problem.
  18. simond

    simond Western Thunderer

    Thanks Stuart.

    I’m years away from needing it, but had thought to use a sort of “tent”, which perhaps avoids the storage issue.

  19. John Ross

    John Ross Member

    If you did decide to provide covers for your stock when the layout is not in use, how about using roller blinds. They could cover stock and roll away when no longer required. Or am I just being daft?

    All the best

    Stuart D and Dog Star like this.
  20. Stuart D

    Stuart D Member

    Far from being daft, that sounds like a very interesting solution, John.
    If I had a shunting plank with a 4ft fiddle yard then I'd be seriously considering that, but with a fiddle yard that is about 24ft x 3ft I'm not sure it could be achieved easily with roller blinds - it would need some form of dust-proofing between the several blinds (to be fully effective) and a structure to support them when in use which might get in the way when not in use and you're operating the layout.
    At the moment dust is not a major problem for me, having decided not to put carpet on the floor; but if I decided to reverse that decision (it can be a bit hard on the knees at times!) then I think I would explore this idea in more detail and see if it might be achievable.
    Thanks for suggesting it.