Alternative main line terminus in OO

[Chimer]

 

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.

 

1.  Call the London lines the Brighton lines, and vice versa?

 

2.  I would say it's obviously practicable, only you know if it's desirable, and it's not particularly realistic unless it can be clearly differentiated from the parallel main lines.

 

Chris

[Satan's Goldfish]

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.

 

As mentioned previously, having to shuffle back and forth into/out of the shed area is not un-prototypical. In the arrangement I drew the only extra shuffle back and forth would have been leaving the shed and going to a platform. Blocking the access to the carriage sidings when coming off shed is also a non-issue; if the engine coming off shed isn't collecting carriages from the carriage sidings anyway, there is little scope for a carriage move happening across the throat at the same time as a light engine moving to/from a platform as they would both need to pass the headshunt to get to the platforms (This applies for any shed layout in the location shown). I'll agree, your re-draw of the shed is a bit awkward and clumsy, see revision below which should make shunting your coal wagons easier too. Access to the track behind the shed would be a nightmare too if you have any issues back there. Plus your shed roads were very close together; remember you'll need space between tracks for the shed doors, plus the fitters like a bit of room to work around the loco.

[jamespetts]

Thank you both for your thoughts.

 

I did consider the idea of simply reversing which lines are considered the London and Brighton lines, but, when I worked it out, that would only make sense geographically if the station were facing north, and that does not make any sense for a south coast terminus. Also, I did want to be able to use the layout to represent other locations, so I think that both gradients need to be equalised. In principle, this is straightforward by just altering the height difference of each, as the lower fiddle yards have a longer run, so can descend more than the upper fiddle yard climbs.

 

I have revised the plan further, and produced two alternatives. The first is a development of the last posted plan, making full use of slips (only double slips: there is nowhere to use single slips here) and with the revised turntable position:

 

 

This allows for a maximum gradient of 1.3%. However, in the yards, some of the curves now have to have a radius as low as 572mm as opposed to the 813mm maximum of the original.

 

The second is an attempt at re-working the original plan by moving the fish sidings to the other side of the station and retaining the original engine shed position (albeit without the diamond shape) and original turntable position (to reach it, I would use a kick stool).

 

 

This has a maximum gradient of 1.8% and a minimum curve radius of 762mm (30") in the yards (still 813mm - or 32" - on the main lines) and can still be built using only the currently available Peco Bullhead track.

 

I should be grateful for views on the relative merits of the two designs.

[Chimer]

Thank you both for your thoughts.

 

I did consider the idea of simply reversing which lines are considered the London and Brighton lines, but, when I worked it out, that would only make sense geographically if the station were facing north, and that does not make any sense for a south coast terminus. 

 

It seems to me that it makes perfect sense geographically as long as your fictional terminus is east of Brighton.  Trains depart heading north and both lines turn west, the left-hand (now Brighton) line because that's the way to Brighton and the right-hand (now London line) because there's somebody's stately home in the way of the direct route north.  

[jamespetts]

It seems to me that it makes perfect sense geographically as long as your fictional terminus is east of Brighton.  Trains depart heading north and both lines turn west, the left-hand (now Brighton) line because that's the way to Brighton and the right-hand (now London line) because there's somebody's stately home in the way of the direct route north.  

 

The trouble is that the terminus is intended to be west of Brighton: it is intended to be an LSWR station, albeit with a line connecting to the LBSCR.

Edited March 26, 2018 by jamespetts

[sem34090]

I think I'll wait until a more final plan is produced before preparing the 'box diagram.

 

With regards 3D printed locomotives, I have indeed had a G6 printed, however the design will need several revisions in order for it to work. In the meantime I may produce other locos, but your E2 probably needs little work to get it running as it probably contains the nigh-on indestructible Hornby (ex-Triang) X04 Motor. If not, the E2 takes the current Hornby 0-6-0 chassis (to be found under the 'Jinty', 2721, J83, J52 and Thomas) which can be found relatively cheaply either on its own or with a body. Indeed, on that one chassis, you can have yourself an SR, LMS, GWR or a choice of two LNER shunting engines to act as station pilots! You could even get away with having only one chassis and five bodies, given the body is a clip-fit on a chassis.

[mightbe]

Do you have any information about how fish were loaded at such locations? I don't see the "north" location of the fish sidings being all that realistic but I admittedly haven't studied the topic. If that could be done "south" of the platforms that might be the better option on both counts.

 

EDIT: I think the throat was better in the first of the two plans, along with the overall orientation of the MPD. However, the turnable should not be linked to the carriage sidings and I'm not sure about the flow. Often the layout was designed such that there was a single sequence that all locos would go through upon entry; usually coal and water were taken care of first, then ashes, then turning before finally going to the shed itself (unless the loco was booked for an immediate return). Turntables were rarely permitted to be an integral part of the sequence; otherwise a failure would stop the entire shed.

Edited March 27, 2018 by mightbe

[jamespetts]

SEM - waiting until the plan is finalised before producing a signalbox diagram seems sensible - thank you again for doing that. I shall have to look into repairing the old E2 - do you have any idea how easy that those things are to fit DCC decoders to? I shall await with interest your adventures in 3d printing.

 

I do not know how fish were dealt with at locations of this sort - any information would be of interest. In terms of orientation, I imagine the station facing west (i.e, the buffer stops pointing west) on a piece of coast line running from north-west to south-east so that, on the plan (where up is south), the top right hand corner of the station is nearest the coast, but the whole frontage of the station is near the coast. I am not sure whether or to what extent that that makes much difference, however.

[mightbe]

There could be an inlet wrapping to the other side, or alternatively imagine the buffer stops facing south--that really opens the conceptual space for an inlet or protected wharf area.

[jamespetts]

The buffer stops facing south is what I had originally imagined, but west seems to fit the curvature better. What advantages would imagining it facing south have?

[Zomboid]

I wouldn't get too tied up in the large scale geography. Portsmouth Harbour faces East, Bournemouth West faced north west as does Littlehampton, and though it's not in the south, at Inverness (which faces North) the southbound Highland main line actually turns off to the north of the eastbound Aberdeen line before crossing over it to head south. So you can justify whatever you like pretty much based on your fictional local geography. If one pair of lines is LSWR and the other if LBSC then that makes it even more likely that there was no particular grand plan when it was all originally built.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Zomboid

[jamespetts]

Thank you for that thought. One possibility is to imagine that the fish train gets to London via Croydon, and thus uses the Brighton line. Another is to move the fish sidings to the lower edge of the station as on the second plan above.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Do you have any information about how fish were loaded at such locations?

 

Downwind, preferably.

[Mike Storey]

Do you have any information about how fish were loaded at such locations? I don't see the "north" location of the fish sidings being all that realistic but I admittedly haven't studied the topic. If that could be done "south" of the platforms that might be the better option on both counts.

 

 

In the case of Lowestoft and Yarmouth, fish were not loaded at these sidings. These were exchange sidings, where the wagons would be swept out (I only know this at Lowestoft for sure, as I am old enough to remember seeing it done) and then the wagons would be drawn across London Road into the trawler docks, by a Y1 Sentinel, later a Y11 petrol, or by the end a Class 03 diesel shunter, for loading with ice and then fish in wooden crates for cod and barrels for herring, there. Other wagons to be transferred were loaded stone for strengthening the breakwaters, cement bags for same, and empty crates and barrels, plus the odd timber, metal sheet and victualling wagons, for ship and canopy repairs/extensions/replenishment.

 

Obviously those moves cannot be replicated on this layout, so Rule 1 will have to be applied. All stock used for fish were vans, so there won't be any disjoint between arriving empty and departing loaded.

[gordon s]

To add to the atmosphere, buy a couple of herring from the local supermarket and slip behind a radiator........

[Siberian Snooper]

I know of a couple of kippers that were tied to the silencer of the groom's car, during the wedding reception, ready for cooking on the way to the honeymoon. Transpired that said groom was not a happy bunny about an hour or so into the trip and it still took an hour to locate the source of the stink. I had no part in the prank, I only got to hear of it, at the next wedding a couple of years later.

[gordon s]

Guess what gave me the idea?.......

[jamespetts]

I think that there's something a little fishy about the latest comments.

[jamespetts]

I have had a go at re-organising the fiddle yards. Here is the revised plan:

 

 

and here is a 3d render showing the revised layout in perspective:

 

 

Although this looks less neat than the previous version, it has several advantages. Firstly, because the tracks cross at a later point, the gradients can be reduced from a maximum of 1.8% to 1.5%. Secondly, for the same reason, it is possible to have a longer scenic area of main line track, allowing the trains to be enjoyed for a few more centimetres. Thirdly, there is a larger well on the left hand side, allowing easier access to that area. Fourthly, there is one more road on both the upper and lower fiddle yards, as I have allowed them to overlap slightly (overlapping by one track should not make the lower overlapped areas inaccessible).

 

I included the 3d image above as it is difficult to see exactly what is happening with the overlapping tracks in the plan view (and SCARM seems to be quite arbitrary about which things are drawn in front of which other things in the ordinary plan view).

 

In relation to the station itself, I am currently leaning towards this design, as it seems to be potentially easier to operate, requiring fewer shunting movements for handling light engines and allowing fish to be accessed from both main lines. It would also mean that I do not have to wait until Peco Bullhead slips become available, although I am still considering whether I can build this with Marcway pre-built and/or customised components. (Can anyone assist with whether there were any medium sized terminus stations in the 1910s-1930s period that did not have any crossings or slips? Presumably, they would only have been used if necessary, as they would have been more expensive than plain points).

 

For fish traffic, what I envisage is two different sorts of service: (1) a dedicated fish train to London, hauling a long rake of braked vans, which will deposit the empties in the fish siding in the late afternoon and collect the loaded wagons early in the morning, and another, local freight train, with mixed freight types, that will, in the mid-afternoon, enter from either the Brighton or the London side, either couple or uncouple two or three fish vans, and then, with a different locomotive, reverse out onto the other main line. Does this seem to be a reasonably realistic traffic pattern for this sort of facility?

[Chimer]

The first train with overnight loading sounds fine.  The second - I suggest you need the one you describe plus a return working, so, say, the wagons are picked up full by a London-X-Brighton working in the morning, and dropped off empty from the Brighton-X-London return working in the afternoon.  These vans just by being there will complicate dealing with the London train, and you'll need to work out how to make sure the brake van gets from one end to the other for each reversal, but that's why freight is fun ...... 

[Fat Controller]

The first train with overnight loading sounds fine.  The second - I suggest you need the one you describe plus a return working, so, say, the wagons are picked up full by a London-X-Brighton working in the morning, and dropped off empty from the Brighton-X-London return working in the afternoon.  These vans just by being there will complicate dealing with the London train, and you'll need to work out how to make sure the brake van gets from one end to the other for each reversal, but that's why freight is fun ...... 

Fish traffic was passenger-rated, and treated as priority traffic for obvious reasons; I would suggest that the 'second wave' of fish vans would probably arrive as 'tail traffic' on an inbound train, rather than via a freight train. These would be detached by the station pilot, for which you have already made provision. The Southern didn't have any purpose-built fish vans, but would have simply loaded the boxes of fish in parcels vans; freshly-landed fish doesn't smell of much more than the sea, it taking a day or two for the ammoniacal odour to become evident.

[jamespetts]

Interesting - thank you both for the fish related information!

 

Does anyone have any thoughts on the revised fiddle yard arrangements?

 

Edit: On the question of fish vans, I have found two types of van: firstly, a general Southern Railway vacuum fitted van as here, and secondly a van explicitly labelled as a "luggage van" here.

 

Are either of those potentially suitable?

 

Edit 2: Or alternatively, this planked van?

Edited March 28, 2018 by jamespetts

[sem34090]

With regards chipping an E2, if you are replacing the chassis (as I did) then it may be worth seeking one from one of Hornby's 0-6-0T's that were included in DCC sets or offered as DCC fitted, as these contain a 4-Pin socket and chip. I put one of these in my E2, though it is currently without a chip as that was donated to my Peckett, as I can now easily fit a 4-Pin chip when I come to add them to my Pre-Grouping fleet.

 

If you are not replacing the chassis, then I will take a look at the one that came out of mine and advise as appropriate.

[jamespetts]

Thank you for that - that is most helpful. I am not quite sure whether I will use the E2 yet: it will need careful dismantling whether I need to replace the chassis or not, and I am not sure how well that the detailing will survive that. Also, are these old motors any good at slow running? I imagine that slow running is rather important for a pilot engine.

[Fat Controller]

Interesting - thank you both for the fish related information!

 

Does anyone have any thoughts on the revised fiddle yard arrangements?

 

Edit: On the question of fish vans, I have found two types of van: firstly, a general Southern Railway vacuum fitted van as here, and secondly a van explicitly labelled as a "luggage van" here.

 

Are either of those potentially suitable?

 

Edit 2: Or alternatively, this planked van?

The luggage van, (latter known as a PMV), along with the similar CCT, are what you're looking for, at least during SR days.