Alternative main line terminus in OO

[Chimer]

 

The engine shed

 

May I ask why it is thought that I could not fit a structure over the sheds as the now stand - is it that the tracks are too close together, is it related to the angle of the tracks, or something else? I had planned to have an actual shed over all of these roads, so if this is a problem, this would need re-thinking. I am not sure that I understand the purpose of a low relief front, since I would need to be able to drive the locomotives into the shed: I do plan to have a system involving an actual timetable which keeps track of locomotive maintenance requirements as part of the operational interest of the layout, requiring an operator (in semi-automatic mode) or the computer (if fully automated) to select an appropriate locomotive for a departing service that has been maintained and refuelled appropriately, which maintenance takes a specified time and can only occur actually in the shed.

 

Is the ability to have a physical shed the only advantage to swapping the turntable and the shed, or are there other advantages (or possibly even disadvantages) to this arrangement?

 

 

 

This was me, so .... it's the angle of the tracks.  I bunked a lot of sheds back in the day, and (apart from roundhouses, obviously) they were all rectangular, not diamond-shaped.  The idea of a low-relief front is that it looks like you've got a big full shed (most would have three or four locos under cover on each road), but your working locos are all out in front, on view.  A full-relief shed means you can't see what you've got, or where they are.  And I think (standing to be corrected here) the proportion of times a steam loco arriving on shed received maintenance that absolutely required it to be "indoors" was pretty low.  As a compromise you could make the shed say one-and-a-bit locos deep, so you could hide a few for a while.

 

The other advantage of the swap is to make it a bit easier to get at the turntable if things go wrong.  I suspect from what other threads have said that they cause more troubles than points.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your thoughts - you think that it is more important to be able to get to the turntable rather than the shed by hand? That would be a good reason to swap.

 

Can you elaborate a little on why the diamond shape is a problem - is it the clearances to the other tracks for rectangular shaped buildings?

 

Edit: Incidentally, can anyone comment on whether a station of this size would have required two signalboxes or whether one would have sufficed?

 

Edit 2: One difficulty that I am having with re-orientating the shed is that there is not enough room for a ladder beyond the leftmost points connecting the carriage headshunt to what is now the turntable. This would mean that the shed's stabling roads would have to be ranged along the track to the turntable. This, in turn, would require the engines to reverse thrice when exiting the shed to back onto the carriages, rather than once as is the case at present. If anyone can think of a sensible way around this issue I should be most grateful.

 

Edit 3: I have made some minor revisions to the plans as below:

 

 

I have not at this stage swapped the engine shed and turntable, but I have allowed for more space around the engine shed by re-aligning the tracks serving the carriage sidings. I have also added a set of points to the top goods yard to allow running around and added a set of points in the fiddle yard to allow a push/pull train to reverse in the fiddle yard without using the reversing loop so as to arrive in the station in the same direction as that in which it left the station.

 

Any information that anyone is able to give about the extent to which stations of this size would have had goods yards would be most welcome. (Did Portsmouth or Southampton stations have goods yards, for instance? Harwich? Littlehampton? Eastbourne? King's Lynn?)

Edited March 24, 2018 by jamespetts

[DCB]

I operate a layout with a basically similar arrangement of ascending and descending lines as at the left hand end of your layout plan and it needs a 1 in 36 gradient on one line and around a 1 in 50 on the other to get round in 8 ft and we have to employ bankers for the 1 in 36 and limit trains to 7 coaches for heavily weighted locos on DC. A bog standard A1 Tornado slipped to a halt with 4 coaches.  So my advice keep it on one level if you use DCC or you are going to be doing a lot of hacking locos about to shift decoders to the Tender, add weight and adding magnets for a DCC Concepts Powerbase.

 

A station of this size would either have very extensive goods facilities nearby, either adjacent a la Paddington or on a different site as at Kings Cross where facilities were beyond the tunnel under the Canal.

A tiny goods shed as shown is ridiculous, try a goods station needs to be around the size of the Passenger station, and those goods sheds were absolutely huge and the fast vacuum trains equally vast, 60 wagons, that's getting on for 20 coaches and 20 feet long in 00.

 

There is something wrong with the drawing the upper level seems to dive under the lower at the right hand end of the Fiddle yard.

 

That operating well is too tight at the return loop. I would discard the goods shed and put the baseboard edge along the side of the outer platform to make squeezing past easier. You need space for controls. Ours are on a vertical surface or a shelf below the baseboard which is where you plan to put another layout.

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

In relation to the gradient, as stated in the opening post, the maximum gradient on this layout is 1.8% (or 1 in 52), which is considerably less than 2.8% (1 in 36), albeit is close to 2% (1 in 50). From what I have read, anything less than 2% is generally fine for model railways. May I ask whether you have difficulties on the 1 in 50 gradient, and, if so, to what extent? In particular, do you have difficulties on that gradient with locomotives that are not pacifics? From what I understand, the latest Hornby pacifics have a fixed rear pony truck, which would mean that a substantial part of the weight of the locomotive would, as in real life locomotives of that configuration, bear upon that non-driving wheel. By contrast, 4-6-0 locomotives (and the earlier and "Railroad" brand pacifics) have more weight on the driving wheels, and should in principle have better traction. (The front bogie in model locomotives barely carries any weight as it floats). In this layout, the longer trains would be hauled by 4-6-0 locomotives rather than pacifics.

 

In relation to the goods shed - you mention some very large stations, which of course would have had entirely separate and enormous freight terminals. I added a goods yard to this layout because I saw the Bournemouth West had one (and largely copied the design). That station serves a medium sized south coast town and has 6 platforms, which is not far from this station, which has 7 platforms (one of which is a short bay platform which will be used with push and pull trains). Norwich Thorpe also seems to have had a small goods yard. I note, however, that Brighton had a substantial, separate goods facility - but the track layout diagram (posted earlier in this thread) still has some "docks" between platforms 3 and 4, presumably for goods. Can you give any indication as to the threshold of size above which a station is unlikely to have goods facilities and below which it is likely to have them, perhaps with some examples (e.g., did Swansea High Street have goods facilities? Harwich? Portsmouth? Southampton? Ashford? Dover?)

 

As stated above, I am aware that the 2d representation of the fiddle yard in SCARM is incorrect: I do not know how to correct this. The correct arrangement, as already stated, is shown in the 3d view reproduced in the opening post.

 

In relation to controls, as stated in the opening post, I plan to have this layout computer controlled. The computer, together with the DCC control station, I plan to have situated on the workbench.

 

As to the space between the station and reversing loop, as it currently stands, it would be 40cm - without the lower goods yard, this could increase to 50cm (assuming no other changes to the design).

Edited March 24, 2018 by jamespetts

[martin_wynne]

Would one design the track layout using Templot and simply send the file to the Marcway people for them to produce the necessary pointwork?

 

Hi James,

 

I don't believe Marcway use Templot. But several other custom track builders do, for example:

 

Member hayfield on here: http://www.rmweb.co..../1131-hayfield/

 

Norman Saunders: http://www.just-tracks.co.uk

 

Stephen Freeman:  http://www.borg-rail.com

 

Norman Solomon (no web site).

 

(These are not recommendations one way or the other, just links for info.)

 

Martin.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Note; Norwich goods yard was not that small, just the parts controlled by the signal box. If you look at the site on Google earth, the goods facilities covered most of the land next to the station from Carrow Road (rail and river bridges) to the river (hence 'riverside yard'). This was all demolished and had the current shopping, entertainment, 'housing', and koblenz avenue added in the 1990s. It's only the modern layout of the site that has a couple of small goods handling facilities if required.

 

Imagination could come into play though if you pretend there's a 3rd side of a triangular junction off scene so freight can bypass the station, going straight from the Brighton line to the London line (see crown point just outside norwich (made up of Thorpe junction, sensual junction, and Trowse swing bridge junction in the signal box diagrams)) which is why goods facilities on site are minimal.

 

Ref the issue with a diamond shaped engine shed; they're just not prototypical. What might help is using a fan of points rather than a ladder as they use a lot less length. I agree reference just having a low relief front though, or partial low relief if you'd still like to run a loco in occasionally.

[jamespetts]

Thank you for your thoughts. Does anyone know how one specifies a design for Marcway, or what it or the other builders charge for custom trackwork or any given specification?

 

Thank you for the information on goods sheds - that is useful. Does anyone know the position apropos any of the stations listed in any of my previous posts?

 

In relation to diamond shaped engine sheds - the plan was not for the shed to be diamond shaped, but for it to be rectangular - at an angle. Do you think that this would be a problem?

 

I do not think that using a fan would much help if I were to swap the turntable with the engine shed, as there still would not be sufficient space for it to be beyond the left-hand side (unless, possibly, I were to revert to using slips, but I do not know whether this would help enough). However, a fan would work with the engine shed in its approximate current position, which might allow it to take a little less space and not be at an angle if being at an angle is a problem.

[gordon s]

James, others will always have different views, but I found steam loco's would struggle with seven coaches on a 1:50 (2%) gradient. With up to 12 coaches and curves involved a 1% gradient would be nearer the mark.  12 coaches would look fine on something considerably longer.  If you want to keep things in proportion, then I use a 1:3 ratio for the length of trains, so a 12 coach train would need something like 40' in a straight run.  By reducing the train length to seven or eight coaches, it will ease the gradient requirements and allow more space for some of the other things you are trying to include.

 

I know it's something you don't want to do and I respect that, but unless you have unlimited space, there always has to be a compromise somewhere along the line.

[jamespetts]

Alternatively, and less compromisingly, I could use the DCC Concepts Power Base or have the lines crossing only at the point of the reversing loop, albeit the latter solution would result in tighter curves and a gradient in the main fiddle yards so the former seems preferable, especially since only the larger locomotives will need to haul long trains, and they can best accommodate the requisite magnets.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Not to scale, just a quick chop around in paint, but hope it gives you the idea. I've put your current plan above. One thing that might be useful how ever you decide to build it is that i've removed a reverse curve from the entrance to the coach sidings which has provided a little more track length along side the engine facilities and smoothed the flow of the track out a little. The only item outside the current Peco Bullhead range is the diamond crossing.

 

 

I've drawn 2 shed outlines; one purely low relief (all shed doors closed) so all stabled engines would be on scene, and a version that would give you length to accomodate 1 loco in the shed on each line (as mentioned earlier in the thread, a shed of this size would probably hold many locos on each road). Another option could be to have different shed lengths on the different shed roads; i.e. the back 2 roads could have a longer shed than the front 4 so you still have the scope to run a couple of engines in for repairs but the majority stay visible.

 

I've not marked exactly where coal, water, and ash facilities are leading up to the turntable, but they'd be there somewhere. Operations would be: loco relesed from platform heads into the pilot road; change direction towards turntable; collect coal, drop ash, get turned, off turntable towards shed; take on water, move to stabling road outside shed to wait for next use. There may be a little shuffling back and forth to get back to a platform from the shed but that's not unusual, but you can get straight into the carriage sidings from the shed if the next train is being collected from there.

 

HTH

[Joseph_Pestell]

Probably a bit of tweaking still to do, but that looks much better with the low-relief shed in the corner and the turntable more in view.

 

As I wrote earlier, I am not sure why the two approach lines have to cross over each other. You could have a lesser gradient if they did not cross over until reaching the return loop. But, by my calculations, you are right that your gradient can be less than 2% so long as one rises and the other descends.

 

As to the goods station question, no universal answer about size of station having any correlation with the presence or otherwise of a goods facility. But generally, the smaller towns, e.g. Littlehampton would be more likely to have the goods yard adjacent. But then Littlehampton only has four platforms. Eastbourne had a goods shed adjacent to the station but other goods facilities (coal, minerals) extended for some way out of the station. In the bigger cities, land values tend to discourage goods yards being built in central locations - but there are plenty of exceptions to "prove" that rule. What is true is that coal/minerals were rare at large stations. Goods traffic would mostly be into big multi-storey warehouses with internal lifts.

 

Marcway do built-to-order and I am sure that they would work from templates prepared in Templot. They would be cheaper than some other builders but would not look as good.

 

I think that I would take a completely different approach to the design of the lower part of the layout, getting rid of one of the hidden fiddleyards and replacing it with scenicked carriage sidings.

 

That would enable you to put a nice large goods warehouse where the carriage sidings are now and gain a bit of aisle space where the rather small goods yard is now. It would also enable you to lose the gradients altogether although you might want a bit of gradient for scenic effect.

 

How many signalboxes? Depends a bit on era and type of signal/point control. But probably just the one.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Joseph_Pestell

[Mike Storey]

I was Station Manager Brighton in the mid-1980's, and those docks to which you refer would not have been for goods use after WW1 (if they ever were). They are positioned almost opposite the old parcels office, so I would only presume that was their intention. Post WW1, goods at Brighton were divided between the lower level main goods yard (now the station car park), accessed from the Shoreham line by a low level tunnel in the Lovers Walk area (which had become a shooting range in my time there), and from the main line further north, and also with two separate coal yards up between the BML and Hove lines triangle (north of Lovers Walk), and of course the Kemp Town branch, which became goods only.

 

In my humble opinion, scrap the goods roads at the lower edge of your station layout, which have no operational value, and use the space to create more believable space for your passenger building or a middle road between two of the platform roads, perhaps. If you still want some goods movements for variety, just have goods trains reversing (topping and tailing in the station), which at Brighton would have been necessary for any freight from the West Coastway (Shoreham line) wanting to access Kemp Town, for example.

 

If you want to simplify the layout a bit more, the only reason the Shoreham line could access most of the Brighton platforms was for trains running on to the Lewes line (East Coastway as now). As you will not have a junction for that, you can reduce the crossovers to just access the lower platforms (or West Side as it would be at Brighton). The actual service from the West terminating at Brighton only needed two platforms, other than for the through services, but I presume you want more operational flexibility than that.

 

As for other terminus stations of approximately this size having goods sheds or lines immediately adjacent, I cannot think of any in the South, South East or East Anglia, apart from Lowestoft, where the adjacent lines were really just exchange sidings for the fish docks across the road at the front of the station (the rest of the many goods facilities were spread out along the line to Oulton, or across the river at Kirkley). Perhaps also at Yarmouth, but I am less familiar with the stations that were there. There was certainly nothing like this at Dover, Ashford, Ramsgate, Eastbourne, Littlehampton or Hastings. Not sure further west or north, apart from Scarborough and Hull (Paragon and Cannon Street), which did have freight sidings alongside their main sheds.

 

 

Edit - Correction: I have just come across something which shows there was goods facility adjacent to the station building at Eastbourne, but at a 45 deg angle, before the station was enlarged.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Mike Storey

[mightbe]

Compared to before this is looking great and very do-able! 

 

Satan's Goldfish has a done a great arrangement for the shed, and I echo the sentiment that the goods area would probably be off scene. (You can always incorporate a parcels platform between the carriage sidings and the platforms). Getting rid of the little goods shed also gives you a few more inches clearance between the reversing curves and the station, which is no bad thing.

 

As for trackwork, I can't recommend Markway (it frankly looks like handbuilt track from 1960s), but I do recommend hayfield who has a thread on his commissioned trackwork projects. Even just copperclad sleepers can looks quite good if the "up top" is done right (as hayfield does). He also works from Templot, which is a good option for complicated early 20th century pointwork. At the moment the station does look a bit 1980s/BR-rationalized due to the non-availability of the complete bullhead range, though this wouldn't be a problem if you used templot.

 

My biggest recommendation is to swap the fiddle yards such that the inner tracks descend and the outer ones stay flat or even ascend slightly, since you don't need their approaches to cross over each other. 

 

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to point out a great resource for SR station inspiration: http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=10&lat=51.2004&lon=-0.0697&layers=173&b=1. The National Library of Scotland has some *very* well-drawn OS maps of southern England from the 1940s-1960s. That's a tad later than your era but generally things stayed as they were from the 1930s until the 1970s. (As an aside, corresponding sheets from the 1930s blank out much of railway infrastructure, what with the impending and inevitable war.)

Edited March 24, 2018 by mightbe

[Chimer]

 

 

My biggest recommendation is to swap the fiddle yards such that the inner tracks descend and the outer ones stay flat or even ascend slightly, since you don't need their approaches to cross over each other. 

 

 

 

Great spot!  And as I don't believe James intends to fiddle in his fiddle yards, the gradients can go all the way from the station throat through the FY loops to the point where the loops cross over each other at the right hand side of the lower board.

[Grovenor]

My biggest recommendation is to swap the fiddle yards such that the inner tracks descend and the outer ones stay flat or even ascend slightly, since you don't need their approaches to cross over each other.

While that may look attractive at first sight it will make the main line radius on the inner pair of tracks much tighter, so while you may gain  a bit on the gradient you lose on the minimum radius. I would keep it as is.

Regards

[sem34090]

Noting the discussion of signals earlier, may I propose the following?

 

As you mentioned, the LNER and SR (and indeed the LMS) adopted upper-quadrant designs post-grouping, but much of the pre-grouping infrastructure remained the same. In the case of all those companies, the constituents used lower-quadrant. Now, I have been thinking about this and noticed the similarity between LNWR, Cambrian and LBSCR lower-quadrant signals, probably because the designs all originated with the same manufacturer. That, therefore, can feasibly cover you for GWR (Just!), SR and LMS. With regards the LNER, it seems that the GER used a similar design to the others, and this would make sense as some degree of their signalling equipment was supplied by Saxby & Farmer, as was the LBSCR and the Cambrian.

 

Thinking along those lines, the 'Generic' (Actually GER...) Wills Saxby & Farmer signal box could be used in conjunction with the signals when in LNER mode. A standard GWR 'box could be used (implying that the box replaced a former Cambrian one) for operating in that mode, and LBSCR S&F 'box for SR mode, and an LNWR 'box for LMS mode, should you wish to run LMS stock in the future.

 

Now, I know that the Cambrian wasn't really big enough for large stations such as this, but you can always invent one!

 

I would also recommend Edwardian's suggestion that red brick and slate roofed buildings are used. I would suggest that canopies (finished in the required colour schemes) with different valancing (Each company and/or building contractor generally had its own style) could be used to suggest which company is being operated, as could signage attached to the canopy. 

[jamespetts]

Thank you all very much for your various thoughts. I will address the various issues under headings.

 

Goods facilities

 

Thank you very much for the detailed and useful information on this. I have also done some research of my own, and found that Southampton docks had a goods yard next to the station (but it was very large), and Swansea had a large separate goods station some way further East than the passenger station, but did have some fish handling facilities in the station itself that were removed when the station was remodelled and cut down in size in the 1970s. It does seem from a combination of this and the information supplied above as though it would have been likely that a town of a size that would accommodate a station of this size would have had a separate goods station to handle most of its goods traffic, separate again from the docks station.

 

One interesting theme emerging from all of this, however, is that both Swansea and Lowestoft had facilities at the station for handling fish traffic despite having a separate goods station. This seems to me something worth exploring for these purposes. If we imagine that this station is very near the quayside, it would make sense for there to be some fish facilities at the station, but no other goods facilities. If we think of this town's fishing industry as being relatively modest, this seems consistent with leaving the upper goods sidings in place and removing the lower goods sidings. This poses a question as to access to the upper sidings from the main lines which will need more consideration. Also - does anyone have any comments on whether what is currently the upper goods yard is realistic/operable for the fish-related purposes described above?

 

I like Mike's suggestion of having local freight trains reversing in the station, which should give a good variety of freight traffic and interesting motive power choices without having to handle anything but fish in the station.

 

The gradients, fiddle yards, curves and couplings

 

As Grovenor states, I had deliberately inserted the crossing at the entrance to the fiddle yards to allow the curves to maintain a relaxed radius: putting the London line fiddle yards at the front would mean a very tight curve inside the fiddle yards and also sloping fiddle yards, which I am not at all convinced is a good idea.

 

I think that using the Power Base (or something similar by way of magnetic adhesion) would be far preferable than having a very tight curve (which I am not even sure would fit within the necessary minimum radius) and sloping fiddle yards.

 

However, the Power Base has the potential to cause complexities elsewhere. I attended the London Festival of Railway Modelling yesterday and bought a little new rolling stock and some no. 18 (NEM medium shank) Kadee couplers for testing. I ran out of time at the end of the day (there was rather more to see than I had anticipated - I particularly enjoyed the Grantham and Kensington (Addison Road) layouts), and did not have time to buy more than the one carriage in the end, so have not been able to test things as fully as I should like, but it is quite apparent that the Kadee couplers (as used on a number of the layouts at the exhibition, including the aforementioned Grantham layout, as well as the MRC's work-in-progress Ingatestone, not to mention (in terms of layouts not at the exhibition) the epic McKinley Railway) are significantly preferable to the tension lock couplers: they allow much closer coupling than the tension lock couplers (to the extent that I wonder whether the platform lengths could be reduced to take account of that - but I will need more than one carriage to test this), and look much less obtrusive. I did not have time to buy a magnet, so I have not been able to test uncoupling as yet.

 

Since the Southern Railway were most fond of running fixed rakes of carriages with numbers painted on the ends, and since the latest Maunsell carriages by Hornby (including the LSWR rebuilds, one of which I purchased yesterday) come with special close couplings that are not capable of automatic uncoupling, I am provisionally minded to form realistic fixed rakes of carriages with the Hornby close couplings on the inside and Kadee couplings on the outside, as well as fitting Kadee couplers to both ends of "loose" carriages. This should be more economical than fitting Kadee couplers to both ends of all carriages.

 

However, there is a potential issue of the interaction between the magnets needed for uncoupling Kadee couplers and the magnets mounted to the base of locomotives using the Power Base: I have read reports of locomotives either stalling through magnetic attraction or leaving the tracks through magnetic repulsion when under-track permanent magnets encounter under-locomotive permanent magnets.

 

The only possible solution to this would be to use a non-permament system for magnetic uncoupling: either electromagnets, or an arrangement that I have seen on a layout at the Model Railway Club: servo mounted permanent magnets that can be moved towards and away from the track electro-mechanically. I note that the electro-magnets supplied by Kadee themselves are very large and unwieldy - has anyone here any experience of uncoupling using electromagnets or servo mounted permanent magnets?

 

Trackage

 

At the exhibition yesterday, I spoke to one of the people at one of the trade stands that was selling Peco Bullhead rail and asked whether he had any idea when the slips and crossings would be available. He did not know, but estimated that it would be around the end of the year, as they had been only recently announced. Unless my shed is significantly delayed, I shall probably want to start on tracklaying before then, so I have the following options:

 

(1) work on the N gauge layout first;

(2) use Marcway (or other custom built) trackage instead of Peco products; or

(3) continue in the current vein and have the layout containing only large radius right and left hand points in the scenic area.

 

I note just how common that slips and crossings were before the "rationalisation" of the post-steam era, although I am not entirely sure whether they were entirely universal, although a brief Google search for track diagrams seems to suggest that all but really rather small stations seem to have had them with some abundance. I might also be able to fit rather more in with slips rather than ordinary points.

 

On one level, the idea of ordering customised track from Marcway or elsewhere is rather attractive, as it would enable an interesting and also more efficient track layout. On the other hand, it introduces a whole level of additional uncertainty, as I do not really know quite how that process would work, and I have heard of, but to date never actually used Templot (and do not know how to communicate design requirements to a track builder other than by way of Templot). I also have no idea how much that this sort of service would cost. If it is only modestly more than the cost of the pre-assembled Marcway points (which are no more expensive than the Peco Bullhead equivalents from what I can tell), then this might well be worthwhile, but I do not have the information to say one way or another in that regard at present.

 

I should be very interested in hearing from anyone who has had any experience of this process.

 

Engine sheds

 

I remain very sceptical of the extent to which I should find low-relief engine sheds satisfactory: they would constantly remind me of the limitations and lack of operational realism that showing what cannot be operated would entail, so I do not think that they would be suitable for me at all, even though there is one sense in which they would solve certain problems.

 

I will have a go t redesigning the track plan allowing for slips and crossings to see whether I can better fit in the engine shed in the suggested position by that expedient, taking into account the suggested layout plan.

 

I note that, on the Grantham layout at the exhibition, the turntable had been placed right next to the edge of the baseboard and right next to the shed operator's position/control panel. I suspect that this may have been deliberate.

 

Era/location transition potential

 

The various tips for this are duly noted - thank you all very much. The scenery element of things will come a little later, so these will have to be stored for future consideration at present, but they are most worthwhile.

 

One thing to consider so far as the station is concerned is the question of canopies versus overall roofs. Portsmouth and Brighton have overall roofs, as did Lowestoft (until 1992); but Bournemouth West and Swansea both had canopies instead. This station is somewhere intermediate in size between Brighton and Swansea, but is not smaller than Lowestoft, so I am leaning towards an overall roof (albeit one that is easily removable - perhaps by the expedient of using brass wire into holes in the platforms).

 

In relation to the signalling, I note the points about the standardised signalling equipment. Does anyone know how long that lower quadrant signals would have persisted? I note that, on the excellent Kensington (Addison Road) layout that I saw yesterday, and which was set in 1925 (one of the eras to which I wish eventually to be able to regress this layout), lower quadrant signals are used there (and at least half the rolling stock is in pre-grouping livery).

 

Does anyone have any experience of installing easily swappable/removable signalling of any sort on a layout?

 

Miscellany

 

Can anyone recommend a good source of information for Southern train formations in the 1930s? I have found this, which is very useful, but seems to be specific to the late 1920s and is somewhat incomplete.

 

Edit: One other small thing - does anyone have a good idea of what sort of locomotives might have been used as a station pilot in this period and location?

Edited March 25, 2018 by jamespetts

[mightbe]

Can anyone recommend a good source of information for Southern train formations in the 1930s? I have found this, which is very useful, but seems to be specific to the late 1920s and is somewhat incomplete.

 

http://www.semgonline.com/coach/sets.html

 

The spreadsheet contains a ton of relevant info for all periods.

[jamespetts]

That is very helpful - thank you.

[Grovenor]

Building a single set of semaphore signals for that station will be a major undertaking, I rather doubt you will want to build 2 or 3 sets.

But build them on Wizard Models servo mounts so they plug in to the baseboard and you will have that option.

Regards

Edited March 25, 2018 by Grovenor

[HillsideDepot]

 

 

One interesting theme emerging from all of this, however, is that both Swansea and Lowestoft had facilities at the station for handling fish traffic despite having a separate goods station.

That would be because fish traffic was closer to parcels (and therefore passenger) traffic in its style of working than it was to goods traffic. Fish was highly perishable in the days before mobile refrigeration, so needed rapid transport between port and major markets.

[sem34090]

I like the idea of an overall roof, as that can help to avoid regional-specific variations.

 

For a station pilot I would suggest the following (based on RTR offerings):

 

SR (ex-LSWR) - Class O2 or M7 0-4-4T (A G6 0-6-0T would be better if you can get hold of one)

SR (ex-LBSCR) - Class A1x 0-6-0T (An E1 may be a better fit, but no RTR model is available currently. An E4 or E2 could perhaps be used)

SR (ex-SECR) - Class R1 0-6-0T (Others may be a better fit, and a H or P may be used instead due to the age of R1 models)

GWR - Class 5700/8750 0-6-0PT (Other panniers or small tank engines could be substituted, but the 5700/8750 design has the advantage of lasting throughout much of the grouping period and being fairy widespread. For pre-grouping GWR may I suggest a Saddle-Tank of some description?)

LNER (ex-NER) - Class J72 (E1) 0-6-0T (Mainline or Bachmann.)

LNER (ex-GNR) - Class J50 0-6-0T (Hornby or Lima... up to you really)

LNER (ex-GER) - Class N7 0-6-2T (On Oxford's list, though I'd suggest a J69 really.)

LNER (ex-NBR) - Class J83 0-6-0T

LMS (ex-MR) - Class 1F 0-6-0T (Either that or some ancient Kirtley design!)

LMS (ex-LNWR) - Webb 'Coal Tank' (Probably justifiable, but possibly not. I'll leave that for others to decide!)

LMS - Class 3F 0-6-0T (Same reasoning as GWR 5700/8750!)

 

Returning to signals for a moment:

 

The signals used on Addison Road (Olympia) are of the LNWR design that I mentioned, and as such are close in design to GER, Cambrian and LBSCR signals. As for time-until-phasing-out of lower-quadrants, it is hard to tell for the LBSCR, as much of the mainline was (as far as I can tell) converted straight from lower-quadrant to colour-light, with the lower-quadrants staying on for a considerable period of time. Indeed, I believe some branches (Midhurst, Lewes - East Grinstead) retained them into BR days. I know that LSWR Lower-Quadrants seemed to hang around in some places until closure of either the line or the 'box, but those are to a different design.

 

There are photos online of GER lower-quadrants still in operation into the BR era, so that is not an issue, but it appears the Cambrian ones didn't survive as long. I fear the GWR may prove the greatest issue with regards signalling, so this is where two sets of signals will possibly be required, as awkward as that will prove. In this case I would therefore suggest GWR Wooden (Square) Post lower-quadrants as they existed from much earlier than the later round-post (steel?) ones and indeed some are still in use. There's a picture online of LNWR signals at Chester in 1976, so that really is not an issue.

 

In short, the ratio LNWR signals are probably adaptable to suit three of the big-four, if not MSE can supply completely accurate components for Saxby & Farmer signals. As usual (  ), the GWR was different enough to warrant a separate set, and GWR square-post signals are also provided by Ratio or through a number of suppliers. It seems that lower-quadrants managed to survive in some places well into the BR era, but larger stations (such as yours) appear to have generally been re-signalled during the 1930's. Again, the GWR is the exception.

 

As such, I would suggest building the LNWR/LBSCR/GER/Cambrian signals first then doing the GWR ones later.

[jamespetts]

Thank you all for your help: that is very useful. That signal servo mounting was exactly the sort of thing that I was looking for. The suggestions as to the types of signals to construct are also most helpful, and likewise the suggestions as to the pilot engines. On that latter topic, I actually have a very old Hornby Class E2 from when I was a nipper that I detailed somewhat as a teenager, but now does not really run. I suspect that the problem is remediable, but it would require removing the body shell to get at the chassis, which I suspect would be difficult in view of the aforementioned detailing. Such old models tend not to run so well, so I might be better off using an A1.

 

I have attempted to modify the track layout to swap the turntable and engine sheds as recommended, as well as to remove the lower goods yards, but I am not entirely content with the result in so far as the engine sheds are concerned:

 

 

The locomotives now need to reverse thrice (and conflict with any movements into/out of) the carriage sidings in order to back onto a train. I had particular difficulties with setting up the coal truck siding for the coaling stage which had not been included in the sketch plan earlier in this thread. The locomotive coal can now be deposited by the coal train arriving in one of the fish sidings, the pilot engine taking the brake van off, and then the train engine propelling the wagons back into the coal siding. The pilot engine would have had to have taken the empties off and put them somewhere earlier, and would then have to put the brake van back on the end of the empties and return them to the fish siding for the train engine to take away again, after it has been turned and watered. That, too, seems to require rather more manoeuvres than the original version.

 

I have not yet set about altering the station throat to accommodate slips and crossings: I might well do that as it might enable a more sensible arrangement of the engine sheds.

[sem34090]

I'll attempt to do up a signalling diagram for the station area, assuming that the sheds and carriage sidings would be served by a second, or maybe even third, 'box.

[jamespetts]

SEM - thank you: that is extremely helpful. Do note that the station layout is still subject to change as I refine the plans, so I do not want for your work to be wasted.

 

Incidentally, SEM: I note that you are the person with the promising looking 3d printing website for Southern things, including the LSWR G6, which I note is designed to take a Bachmann chassis. Have you managed to get this to print successfully yet? I might be interested in having one of those in due course.

 

I have had a go at re-designing the station throat to accommodate slips, see the below:

 

 

I have not yet altered the functionality of the station approaches, but I have made the throat take less space so that the gradients can start sooner and can be shallower. With this revised arrangement, the gradients are now no more than 1.3%. However, the fish sidings are still not accessible from the London lines, which is a shame, as people in London would presumably have eaten a lot of fish, and going via Brighton would have been rather a long way around. Any thoughts on how to ameliorate this would be most welcome.

 

Incidentally, does anyone have any views on the practicality/desirability/realism of a third parallel line on the London lines on the inside of the curve, being a branch line which diverges from the main line further down the tracks somewhere? I could run push and pull branch trains into the bay platform at the lower part of the station.