Alternative main line terminus in OO

[jamespetts]

Interesting - how far into the Southern would the GWR locomotives actually go? I know that there was a significant financial disincentive to running too far over other opeators' lines with locomotives under RCH rules.

 

As to the track layout, I have looked at Brighton. I may have a look into that in more detail again - somebody suggested that I use Brighton's track plan minus the Western route, although I am not sure whether that would fit. Designing something imagined to have been put together piecemeal over years is rather harder than designing something imagined to have been designed all at once!

Edited April 12, 2018 by jamespetts

[sem34090]

Victoria would be a good example to look at, as it is essentially two stations that just so happen to share a plot of land! The South Eastern side being rather different in appearance and shape to the Brighton side. Both still operate like that today. It still never ceases to amaze me just how much some of the regions operated by modern TOC's owe to their pre-grouping origins, even to the extent that some are being named after their pre-grouping predecessors.

[Zomboid]

The DNS was primarily built to access Southampton, so in terms of passenger operation I'd expect Southampton Terminus to have been as far as they'd go. It wasn't a major route for passenger operation as far as I know. Freight might have taken locos further, I don't really know about that.

 

It was me who suggested ripping off the middle & east bits of Brighton

[jamespetts]

The DNS was primarily built to access Southampton, so in terms of passenger operation I'd expect Southampton Terminus to have been as far as they'd go. It wasn't a major route for passenger operation as far as I know. Freight might have taken locos further, I don't really know about that.

 

It was me who suggested ripping off the middle & east bits of Brighton

 

Ahh, yes! I shall have to have a go at that at some point.

 

I have decided to build the N gauge layout first (for two reasons: firstly so that the Peco Bullhead slips and crossings are available when I come to build this one, and secondly so that I have more experience of layout building when I come to build this one, which is probably in many ways the more complex and potentially interesting of the two), so I am not focussing quite as much on this at present, but I think that I will need to redesign the track for the station throat for this somewhat (to incorporate slips and crossings as necessary) in due course. Whether the two thirds of Brighton approach works remains to be seen, but at least I have a good large scale track plan of Brighton in the right sort of era from which to work.

[jamespetts]

I have finally had a chance to redesign the station throat layout incorporating slips and crossings and (very loosely) based on elements of Brighton station as well as taking into account some other advice on this thread, especially regarding imagining the station as having evolved over the years and having been built by two different railway companies.

 

One reason that I have done this now even though I am planning to build the other N gauge layout first is that I realised when the shed was mostly built that I had made an error with the placement of the windows: the large window nearest the door was constructed (as shown on the drawings for the shed) a meter or so in from the corner rather than as close to the corner as possible, giving considerably less longitudinal space for the fiddle yards than I had planned. I therefore felt compelled to check whether something close enough to what I had originally planned was possible with the window in its current position and also see how that would affect the design generally. I also discovered that the internal dimensions of the shed were about 3cm more generous than anticipated in both directions, so I wanted to accommodate that, too.

 

The revised design is attached. As will be seen, I have marked the position of the window and planned workbench. The reversing loops overlap with, but do not foul, the window, and it should still be possible to access the window handle (in about the middle of the window) quite easily. I will have to think carefully about how the reversing loop will be supported (since I am planning to have the layout supported mainly by racking on the walls to allow for the N gauge layout underneath) - I expect that the reversing loops will need to be supported from underneath. I do plan to get the baseboards for this layout built professionally as these will be quite complex with the reversing loops and the split levels. I am not yet sure whether to have the interior of the lower reversing loop hollow so that I can stand up inside and access the fiddle yards more easily, or whether it would be better to leave it solid to allow space for storing items of rolling stock off the tracks.

 

As will be seen, I have incorporated two different carriage sidings and two different engine sheds (albeit sharing a turntable, as I believe is true to life if I have understood diagrams of Bath Green Park correctly), and removed the fish facilities, as there is no space for these with the double set of carriage sidings. Each different line (the line to Brighton and the line to London) each has its own carriage sidings, engine shed, coaling stage and long siding/headshunt. I have based the dimensions of the engine sheds on actual models whose dimensions are available: the LSWR shed (with a gabled end as many LSWR sheds seem to have had) is intended to be an LCUT B 00-15, and the smaller LBSCR shed (a northlight roof shed) a Scale Scenes R201b. Both are modular designs allowing the fairly long sheds (and, in the case of the LSWR shed, the otherwise difficult to find in model form three track layout) shown.

 

With this layout, not all of the platforms are accessible from both of the main lines (similarly to Brighton), although platforms 4 and 5 (in the middle) are fully accessible from both main lines. There is an additional (short) platform on the LBSCR side, giving a total of eight platforms, and the layout should reduce the extent to which movements conflict with one another.

 

The steepest gradient is 1.3% and the sharpest curve is 572mm (and these sharp curves are only in the fiddle yards - the scenic areas all have larger curves, and the mainline has nothing <900mm in radius).

 

There are two particular aspects of which I am currently unsure. The first is the way of hiding the Brighton lines (those at the back) as they enter the fiddle yard. These go into a tunnel at present before the corner to make it appear as though this line continues straight, whereas the London/LSWR line curves gently around the corner in the scenic area before entering the fiddle yard on the short side of the she, giving the impression of lines diverging in different directions. However, because of this new design, I need not just two but three tracks on both the LSWR and the LBSCR lines, meaning that what is effectively a headshunt has to go into a tunnel. I cannot imagine any real railway company building a tunnel just for a headshunt - but I cannot think of any way around this at present save for imagining that the tunnel is very short, which does not assist greatly. If anyone has any thoughts on this, it would be appreciated.

 

There is also the related question of where the slope for this section begins: currently, the slope begins at the point on the diagram where the tunnel mouths are shown. However, it would in principle be possible to start the slope just beyond the end of the facing crossover on this line, allowing a longer descent, and therefore a shallower gradient. Adjusting the height of the main part of the layout would then allow some of that benefit to be shared between this descending line and the other ascending line (the LSWR line). There is then the question of what to do with this additional incline - I might either just have even gentler slopes on both lines, or have slopes at their current level of steepness, but start the slope for the LSWR/London line further from the station to allow an additional set of crossovers to remove the need for a double slip on the diverging pair of lines to platforms 4/5 and make the track layout here a little more realistic.

 

The second aspect that requires further consideration is the location of the short platform (currently platform 8) on the Brighton line side (at the top of the diagram). Currently, this is at the back of the station and numbered platform 8 - but I wonder whether it would be better positioned between platforms 5 and 6 and (what are now) platforms 6 and 7 moved upwards somewhat?

 

In any event, any constructive thoughts on this revised layout and the issues set out above would be much appreciated.

 

Edit: Adding a higher resolution version of the diagram:

 

Edited June 24, 2018 by jamespetts

[Zomboid]

Is there any precedent for having essentially two complete loco depots next to one another, but sharing a turntable?

It would seem more probable to me that one company would provide a shed and servicing facilities, and the second would pay to have its engines serviced/ stabled, or there would be two totally independent sheds with no overlapping facilities - one of which is off-scene (I'll suggest the LBSC since that has a 3 track approach, one of which could be the "engine line").

Edited June 24, 2018 by Zomboid

[jamespetts]

Is there any precedent for having essentially two complete loco depots next to one another, but sharing a turntable?

It would seem more probable to me that one company would provide a shed and servicing facilities, and the second would pay to have its engines serviced/ stabled, or there would be two totally independent sheds with no overlapping facilities - one of which is off-scene (I'll suggest the LBSC since that has a 3 track approach, one of which could be the "engine line").

 

The precedent that I had in mind is Bath Green Park, which, I believe, had two engine sheds and one turntable. An off-scene engine shed is an interesting idea, although I am not sure how practical that it would be to replicate these facilities (functionally, even if not scenically) in the fiddle yards given the available space.

 

Does anyone else have any information on how multiple railway companies interacted in shared stations vis a vis shed and other facilities?

Edited June 24, 2018 by jamespetts

[JST]

I run SR and GWR and have shared shed facilities. I justify it based on Weymouth. In any case here is an interesting read:-

 

http://www.davidheyscollection.com/page37.htm

Edited June 25, 2018 by JST

[Chimer]

However, because of this new design, I need not just two but three tracks on both the LSWR and the LBSCR lines …..

 

I may regret asking this, but ………. why?  (I know that's not entirely constructive ..)

 

Cheers

 

Chris 

Edited June 25, 2018 by Chimer

[jamespetts]

I have slightly updated the design of this:

 

 

The changes are, in summary:

 

(1) two double slips were replaced with single slips;

(2) one single slip was replaced with a double slip;

(3) removal of redundant track near the LBSCR shed (allowing for a gentler curve to the turntable);

(4) better alignment of the LBSCR headshunt in the fiddle yards and an additional crossover;

(5) additional infrequent use sidings in both sets of fiddle yards (for, e.g., locomotive coal trains);

(6) slight realignment of the entrance to platform 1 and the LSWR carriage sidings allowing slight narrowing of the baseboards at the widest point and more gentle track curvature here; and

(7) start of the incline to the tunnel on the LBSCR lines a short distance after the crossover to allow for a slight cutting effect - this also has the effect of reducing the maximum gradient on the layout to 1.1% from its previous 1.3% by increasing the height of the scenic part of the layout by 5mm.

 

In relation to Chris's question, the need for this headshunt comes from the need to shunt rakes of carriages from the platforms into the LBSCR/central section carriage sidings - there is no access to these sidings from the LSWR/western section headshunt with this layout, so an additional headshunt to allow for this is necessary.

 

As to depot facilities - I added two sets of depot facilities as a result of encouragement by others on this very thread to take inspiration from the Brighton layout (which has two sheds) and to imagine a layout in which two separate railway companies came together in one place and the resulting station grew up over time rather than being built all at once as a coherent whole. I used a single turntable because there is some precedent for this (at Bath Green Park) and because it is difficult to fit two turntables into the space (I did look into doing this at one point).

 

I am not able to find any good track plans online of Weymouth, so I am not sure how that worked, nor how large a station that it was nor how significant that it was to each company that operated trains from it. The article linked was very long, and it is not immediately clear what part of that was relevant to sharing facilities - JST, can you elaborate a little on which parts of it are relevant?

 

In relation to the earlier idea of having an off scene shed for the LSBCR lines, I have considered this further, but there are several problems with this:

 

(1) it would presumably also need an off-scene turntable, which would be awkward and for which there would be no space;

(2) there would be conflicts between using the third line as a carriage headshunt and a depot line; and

(3) it is good to be able to see one's lovely locomotives reposing in the scenic area if possible.

 

I should be interested in people's views on this slightly revised design in any event, especially in case I have missed anything operationally.

 

(Incidentally, would anyone find it helpful if I were to upload diagrams showing the slightly overlapping upper and lower fiddle yards separately?)

[Siberian Snooper]

This link is to the NLS 25 inch map series http://maps.nls.uk/geo/find/#zoom=12&lat=50.5958&lon=-2.4548&layers=101&b=1&point=50.6138,-2.4448 You need to click on the box marked with Radipole Village and the two that make up Weymouth to get the full track plan. Once you have selected the box you will see a list of maps for different dates on the righthand side.

 

HTH.

[jamespetts]

That is interesting. The station appears to have been a terminus for the LSWR main line from Bournemouth from the east, with a minor branch line from the GWR feeding it from the north. The engine shed facilities are shown some way along the track from the main station with a single three road depot (I think that the building next to it in the darker shade is a coaling stage) and turntable and two large fans of sidings. This station seems a little smaller than the station that I am imagining (four platforms at the relevant time, down I think to two in modern times), but might be of some relevance.

 

Given that, as demonstrated by the diagram, I can, in fact, fit two engine sheds into the space, doing so provides some operational interest and there is historical precedent for having two, what do people think that the advantage of having just one would be?

[JST]

...and just for interest just a bit further up the GWR line from Weymouth was Yeovil Town. Not a terminus but another example of GWR and Southern sharing a shed.

 

http://www.yeovilhistory.info/townstation.htm

[Zomboid]

I thought that the main route to Weymouth & the channel islands by boat train was the GWR, at least prior to nationalisation. Obviously that's not the case now...

 

Anyway, if you want two sheds and can justify it in your mind then go for it. I was really questioning the duplication of all facilities except the turntable, but if it's happened elsewhere then I stand corrected.

[JST]

I thought that the main route to Weymouth & the channel islands by boat train was the GWR, at least prior to nationalisation. Obviously that's not the case now...

 

Anyway, if you want two sheds and can justify it in your mind then go for it. I was really questioning the duplication of all facilities except the turntable, but if it's happened elsewhere then I stand corrected.

 

Just because I could, I did the train trip about 5 years ago from Taunton to Weymouth. The former GWR line from Castle Cary to Weymouth via Yeovil Pen Mill is somewhat of a backwater now and a tad down at heel whereas the former Southern route from Weymouth to Waterloo is posher and electrified. The junction of the two lines is at Dorchester. Being a sad git I walked the track from Weymouth Station to the harbour (goes through the streets) before they rip it up (maybe they have now).

[mightbe]

That is interesting. The station appears to have been a terminus for the LSWR main line from Bournemouth from the east, with a minor branch line from the GWR feeding it from the north. The engine shed facilities are shown some way along the track from the main station with a single three road depot (I think that the building next to it in the darker shade is a coaling stage) and turntable and two large fans of sidings. This station seems a little smaller than the station that I am imagining (four platforms at the relevant time, down I think to two in modern times), but might be of some relevance.

 

Given that, as demonstrated by the diagram, I can, in fact, fit two engine sheds into the space, doing so provides some operational interest and there is historical precedent for having two, what do people think that the advantage of having just one would be?

 

 

Here's the original arrangement at Bath Queen Street. It's worth remembering that the Midland got there in 1869 (with a temporary terminus), while the jointly owned (Midland+LSWR) S&D arrived in 1874. The Midland provided motive power and servicing while the LSWR provided stock and infrastructure originally, so in terms of having two sheds... in a way it was laid out to augment what was there, while also providing some independence. (Hence the reason for the shared turntable.)  

 

With what you've shown I'm not sure I see hints at chronology. The two throats definitely give the air of operational independence, but the way they're sited in relation to the two sheds makes it look like they were built simultaneously.

 

Have you considered putting the turntable over in this location? I sketched out a few changes to make room for the arrangement. To me this location suggests that the LSWR arrived first and the LBSCR had to 'make do' with a less optimized and more cramped arrangement (and presumably paid to widen an existing platform to make room for their own structure). This would be especially true if the topographically easy route to the town had already been taken by the LSWR--justifying the tunnels on the LBSCR line.

 

 

 

(I apologize for not being able to flesh out the shed trackwork in the first image; I'm working around a 50-piece track limit. I also realized I'd need to change the shape of the LSWR shed building in the process, and a couple other slight visual differences)

 

Per your questions: I don't think any railway company has ever built an extra tunnel for a headshunt when the main line can be used, which was fairly common anyway. As for the short platform, it could be either. Personally the idea of there being one wide platform with room for a taxi rank would really complete the station, and the short platform could take a 'slice' out of the far end (for parcels, a nearby branch, etc.)

Edited June 27, 2018 by mightbe

[DCB]

That is interesting. The station appears to have been a terminus for the LSWR main line from Bournemouth from the east, with a minor branch line from the GWR feeding it from the north. The engine shed facilities are shown some way along the track from the main station with a single three road depot (I think that the building next to it in the darker shade is a coaling stage) and turntable and two large fans of sidings. This station seems a little smaller than the station that I am imagining (four platforms at the relevant time, down I think to two in modern times), but might be of some relevance.

 

Given that, as demonstrated by the diagram, I can, in fact, fit two engine sheds into the space, doing so provides some operational interest and there is historical precedent for having two, what do people think that the advantage of having just one would be?

Weymouth was an oddity.  It was a GWR Terminus with a GWR loco shed with a GWR branch to Weymouth Harbour used by boat trains which did not stop at the terminus but changed locos and bypassed the terminus to terminate at the quayside station.    The LSWR had running powers from Dorchester where their line ended rather prematurely having at one time been supposed to run further west towards Exeter but the Salisbury line got there first.. This was possibly due to the LSWR part owning a branch to Portland, don't quote me.   I have never see pictures of Nelsons or Arthurs at Weymouth, Plenty of Greyhounds, N's, and in later days WC and MNs, all surviving MNs were there for a bit in the 1960s, The big GW passenger locos left when the big SR ones arrived for the change in Boat trains to the SR route. 

The Southern Loco shed was at Dorchester some distance away and the Southern trains were stoppers and semi fasts to Bournemouth. Dorchester closed in early BR days I believe and the stock went to Weymouth.

Someone will correct me but I don't believe SR locos were employed as shunters or ECS pilots at Weymouth, GWR 1366 panniers were favourites in BR days up until they went to Wadebridge en mass in 1962 replaced by 204 hp diesel shunters.  Previously BPGV locos with Welsh names were also used, possibly to confuse invading Germans, "Achtung ve haf landed in vhales, ve must go back and find Inglandt"    The Southern didn't really go in for shunting locos they had very few 0-6-0Ts and on the western section tended to use 02s and M7s instead

In BR days the present long platforms were added for excursion trains, and in 1957 Boat trains were diverted to the SR route. Previously the station struggled to cope with long trains, the long trains, boat trains, were dealt with at the quay so it was not an issue but the explosion of holiday travel with paid holidays meant the old layout could not cope.   Weymouth was the last GWR shed with standard gauge steam albeit with SR and BR std stock when closed in 1967.  

You might look at Buxton for inspiration, two termini alongside each other.

[jamespetts]

Thank you both for your thoughtful replies and detailed scale plans!

 

Turning first to the plans - this is an interesting arrangement. I have not had a chance to try this in SCARM yet, but I do note one or two issues with them, some of which may be more of an issue than others. Firstly, I notice that the double track crossover from the Brighton lines to the South-Western lines has been reduced to a single track. My use of double track here was based on the track layout at Brighton, which I was advised to replicate to some extent. It does seem to be a little more authentic than the single lead crossover from the plans that I have seen, but perhaps there are precedents for a single lead crossing in this situation of which I am unaware? I do note that a fair bit of space is gained by this, however.

 

Secondly, I notice that platform 4 is now inaccessible from the Brighton line, giving only one platform accessible from both mainlines, platform 5. I am concerned about the impact of this on operational flexibility.

 

Thirdly, I notice that there are two places where three way points have to be used. I am planning to use Peco Bullhead track for this layout, and, although the slips and crossings are planned for late this year or early next year, the three way points are not likely to be introduced any time soon (although I expect that Peco will do them in a few years' time). The layout is specifically intended to be able to be built with the Peco Bullhead track that will be available when the next set of items (i.e., the slips and crossings) become available, so any design using three way points in the scenic section is not feasible. From what I can make out, one use of three way points, in the LSWR engine shed, can probably fairly easily be dispensed with by reducing the number of engine shed roads from 4 to 3, but the other one, on the Brighton lines, may be harder to do without in this general layout, although this may need more thought if this general layout is ultimately preferable.

 

Fourthly, as to the turntable position, I notice that it fouls what is currently the headshunt track on the LSWR line, requiring all three tracks to take a different course and a tigher radius, requiring the widening of the baseboards at the far end of the shed. This is somewhat sub-optimal, although quite to what extent will need further consideration. To answer your question, I had considered putting the turntable approximately where you have it there, and had it there for some time during the planning phase, but moved it to its present location when it became apparent that the space could be used more efficiently this way.

 

In relation to the appearance of the layout as being one in which the engine sheds had been built at the same time as each other, may I ask what in particular gives that impression? One can well imagine the original terminus consisting of platforms 2-5 only with the engine shed and turntable where they are now, and perhaps the coaling stage where the LBSCR shed is now, and the coaling stage being moved to accommodate the LBSCR shed in the 1860s/1870s when the LBSCR line was added. (I do agree, incidentally, on the imagined chronology of the LSWR line being first, perhaps in the 1830s, and the LBSCR line coming, with a sub-optimal alignment requiring tunnels, later).

 

In relation to the LBSCR headshunt in the tunnel - I had been thinking about this. I wonder whether one possible justification for this might be that this connects to the LBSCR goods station that we imagine to be some way down the line and is used for servicing goods engines? However, this might then require me to have a whole lot of engines that never haul trains (but perhaps they could haul excursions?), including a lot of ex-LBSCR goods engines which are not available ready to run, and facilities to accommodate all of them in the fiddle yards. This would also require a crossover in the tunnel section, which would be on a gradient. I understand that points in hidden sections are to be avoided (and I have yet to think of a way of making the scenery over the tunnel area easily removable so that it can be lifted off to rescue any stuck trains, as I understand that permanently inaccessible areas are a very bad idea indeed, for fairly obvious reasons. Another issue with this is that it might be difficult to deal with turning engines. A different possibility would be to imagine that this line instead is used for the purposes of a branch line as well as a headshunt: one might imagine a branch line such as that to Hayling Island or Gosport. This might be a good excuse to use an LBSCR A1 class locomotive on this layout, although it might be difficult to find suitable carriages (this photograph suggests 4 bogie non-corridor carriages of indeterminate origin in the grouping era; were these push-pull, does anyone know?).

 

The other possibility as to the headshunt of course is to have no headshunt on the LBSCR line. How common was it to use the mainline as a headshunt - what sort of size of station would there have to be before this would be considered infeasible? Brighton seems to have had parallel headshunts on all approach lines, but that was a larger station than I am imagining here by at least a factor of 1.5 if not 2.0. I should be interested to know what precedents that there are for this. I would then need to consider the signalling: I should normally imagine a signal a little way after the tunnel mouth protecting the junctions of the station throat on the line into the station - but if this line is to be used as a headshunt, would the signal have been moved farther back beyond shunt limits - or would there alternatively have been an outer home as well as the visible inner home? It would be a pity not to have trains waiting (and signals) in a visible area.

 

As to the short platform, one issue that has since come to mind in relation to this is that this would take more space if it were to be in the centre than if it were to be at the edge, since there would have to be space for two minimally wide platforms either side of it. I am not quite sure whether this would fit in the circumstances.

 

I have been giving some thought to more exactly where the layout fits into the railway network generally (and have managed to get the railway atlas to work at proper resolution, which makes this task much easier). The basic idea of an agglomeration of Portsmouth, Southampton and Bournemouth in terms of services still holds, but, in terms of location, I am focussing more on a Solent based location to make the boundary between the LBSCR and LSWR make sense. This gives rise to some complexity, as Southampton and Bournemouth trains ran from London via Basingstoke on a longer but faster route, whereas trains to Portsmouth ran from London on the LSWR via Petersfield (on a somewhat hilly and winding route that required 4-4-0s and had the only allocation of Schools class locomotives outside the Eastern section, using those and D12s, but no Nelsons or Arthurs) or the LBSCR via Pullborough (either via Croydon or via Sutton) using locomotives such as the B2x class (via Sutton) or the B4x (via Croydon). One possibility is to conflate the Petersfield and Pullborough routes to our imaginary Bournehampton, and have a world in which the Schools class took over from B4x locomotives on the imagined "Petersborough" ("Pullfield"?) route from London to Bournehampton.

 

The Brighton to Plymouth expresses can nicely be replicated with the forthcoming Bachmann H2 (these were apparently used on the service as far as Portsmouth) and the "OO Works" D12, a pair of which I have just ordered (if anyone knows where I can find a secondhand example of one of their I3s, please let me know, as these would be perfect for the Bournehampton to Brighton semi-fasts as I do have somewhat of a penchant for express tanks and LBSCR engines - these were used on the Brighton to Portsmouth trains in reality).

 

The removal of the fish traffic from the earlier layout permits more fiddle yard space for passenger stock, so one might remove the LNER inter-regional set from the LBSCR side and put it instead on the LSWR side, imagining it having travelled via Coventry and Oxford. This does leave spare space on the LBSCR side for which some thought may be necessary (perhaps two different slots for a "via Sutton" and "via Croydon" London service).

 

In any event, thank you both again - the feedback is most helpful.

[Zomboid]

The thing with the headshunt in the tunnel is that the tunnel would have been built in the days when 8 trains in a day was considered intensive, so using the main line for shunting would have been entirely feasible. By the time that a headshunt or third track might have been desirable, the tunnel would still have been there and would provide a limitation on what could be done. And even then, in steam days the service wouldn't have been so intensive that you couldn't use the main line to get to and from the carriage sidings.

 

As for having only the one shared platform, that is entirely believable - the West Coastway at Brighton only has one platform, and only a small section of that where the London lines are accessible, and I think Inverness is the same (might be that there's no way to go from Aberdeen to the far north without using the avoiding line, actually). It's the limitations that make operation fun IMO.

 

Your location is probably about right. Maybe Portsmouth if both companies had built their own routes onto the island, or Southampton Terminus if the Brighton had built their own route in via Fareham etc, maybe tunnelling under the Itchen rather than looping round via St Denys like the LSW line does.

 

Finally, I suggest a bit of a shuffle to get a bit more character into the station, such as changing the LBSC carriage sidings into centre roads (functionally similar to what you have now, maybe copy Bath Green Park and have one with a run round), or vary the width, or try to get some of them to taper such that they're narrower near the throat. Just try to break up the 8 long, straight parallel lines somehow.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Zomboid

[mightbe]

(Items addressed in order)

 

1. I did remove the paired double junctions, it seemed like overkill on what would've been (in reality) two separate stations with two separate structures. Were this a real location there probably wouldn't have been any direct connections in the early days; early relations between the two companies were quite famously poor and required parliamentary intervention. The bitter and petty disputes had waned by the early 20th century, but things were by no means cosy. One direct connection for a handful of passenger services would've sufficed. In such an arrangement goods traffic headed from the LBSCR to this particular LSWR line would have been exchanged at another, more operationally convenient location.

 

On a related note the two adjacent stations would've been equipped with separate signal boxes. (The SR started consolidating and rebuilding signal boxes in the 1930s, some in their famous Art Deco style.)

 

2. A second direct connection is a pretty simple change, but not something I'd necessarily expect until the Grouping.

 

3. Even if three-way bullhead points never arrive I have two related pearls of practical wisdom: No. 1, everything but the rail heads of tandem turnout in the LSWR shed would be buried under ash and general 'yuck'. No. 2, the LBSCR tandem is nearly 4 feet from the viewer so disguising the difference is fairly easy. You could always choose to replicate the interesting pre-grouping practice of burying the sleepers under fine ballast in station areas, i.e., where workers would walk most.

 

4. If you look closely the headshunt meets up with its original alignment. (I left out the main lines beneath since their location is obvious.) However, you could move the turntable and anything affected in the LBSCR shed a few inches 'up' with zero difficulty, restoring the earlier curve.

 

Unnumbered item A: The earlier proposal struck me as very egalitarian and even-handed, as if perhaps the two companies were sharing notes and cooperating. I opted to give the LSWR side clear priority since I (we) imagined them getting there a couple decades earlier. For the same reasons I simplified and tightened up the LBSCR throat a little, to make it work around (not with) the pre-existing LSWR facilities. 

 

" " B: I really can't imagine any arrangement requiring a third tunnel. A branch would deviate on the other side at a convenient junction, light engine movements from a nearby goods facility would proceed toward the shed via the main, etc. In practice, railway companies were willing to do very awkward things indeed if it kept them from digging more tunnels than they absolutely had to. Glasgow Queen Street is a great example of this.

 

" " C: It was common to use the main line as a headshunt at a terminus, especially in awkward or cramped locations. Glasgow Queen Street was a much larger station than the proposed LBSCR one.   EDIT: here's the link: http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17&lat=55.8634&lon=-4.2508&layers=81&b=1

 

" " D: Perhaps so; the alternatives are equally realistic. Today it's easy to observe an awkwardly wide platform previously used for loading parcels, newspapers, etc., or as a now-eliminated taxi rank. But then there are also termini that once had carriage sidings between a pair of platform tracks--King's Cross, Euston, Paddington, Brighton, Victoria, Bath Queen Square, etc etc.

 

(No real responses to the rest; the geography seems about right and don't have any helpful info regarding the 'filling of slots')

Edited June 28, 2018 by mightbe

[jamespetts]

Thank you both for your replies. Firstly, as to Brighton and the single lead crossovers - the diagram that I have from the very early 20th century shows that the western branch/coastway had three lines linking from the main line and two platforms (platforms 9 and 10, plus a "spare road" between them - presumably a central carriage siding) accessible both from the west branch and the main lines (and, indeed, east branch). It may be that, post rationalisation, now only one platform is linked to both, but this was not the case in the pre-war days.

 

To take the numbered and lettered points:

 

(1-2) See above on Brighton station. I cannot imagine that two railway companies would have built their stations right next to each other like that unless they actually wanted to connect - if their relations were poor enough not to want to connect, they would have stations in different parts of town (even if only accross the road from one another as in King's Cross and St. Pancras). I can foresee a single lead here and a single accessible platform causing significant operational difficulties. Are there any precedents for this arrangement in any event? The double lead connexion does seem more typically grouping/late pre-grouping era than the single lead.

 

(2A) As to signal boxes - I have specified two separate signal boxes. Do the locations of these seem plausible?

 

(3) I am not entirely convinced by this - I do not think that one can rely on burying the sleepers so thoroughly that even the sleeper spacings are invisible. The Bullhead range is quite different in quite a lot of different ways, and I do not think that track in yards would not have had a single sleeper visible.

 

(4) Yes, I can see that there is probably room to accommodate that there, although more investigation may be needed if I were to adopt a plan like this.

 

(A) The reason that the sheds ended up where they were is because I designed the main station throat first (not all the points, but the basic alignment of the main lines and crossing lines from the LBSCR lines to the LSWR platforms) and then sought to fit the sheds in around that. I did give the LSWR shed more space, but it took many, many hours of work just to find an arrangement where it all fitted at all. I note that your arrangement seems only to work with a single lead transfer from the Brighton lines to the station platforms. An egalitarian appearance might be preferable to operational inflexibility. On the other hand, if I am removing the third headshunt line on the Brighton side, there might be space for some realignment.

 

(B/C) As to the headshunt in the tunnel, I do take the point. I had added this in part because the Brighton diagram showed all approaches essentially having three lines; if using the main line as a headshunt even on a relatively substantial station (such as Glasgow Queen Street) was common, then I can see the sense in taking this out. This can be retained for the LSWR lines, of course.

 

(D) This may need some further thought on the next re-planning attempt, for which I have no time this evening.

 

---

 

Another possibility occurs to me, although I have yet to decide on/test as to whether this is feasible. We might move the LSWR carriage sidings from the visible area and add them to the fiddle yard, using the third line as access to these carriage sidings, but having them off-scene. I see the following advantages and disadvantages to this.

 

Advantages

 

* There would be no carriage sidings in the way of the view of the station.

* The width of the layout at the pinch point near the reversing loops would be narrower allowing easier access

* There would be more variety of appearance at the station instead of having two parallel sets of carriage sidings

* There would be an additional justification for the long third road to the fiddle yard

 

Disadvantages

* The carriage sidings would not be in the visible area, reducing the number of interesting things to look at (including carriage siding shunting).

* Fitting this in would require widening the fiddle yards substantially (by at least three tracks) and might well make the curves tighter and the gradients steeper, which would make it less likely that long trains would be able to take these without slipping.

* The third road is on the wrong side to be added to the fiddle yard easily.

* Additional complexity would be required in the fiddle yard, including run-around facilities for engines shunting the carriages.

 

Ironically, it would be easier to accommodate the carriage sidings in fiddle yard arrangement in the Brighton line fiddle yards, but it is less needed here. I wonder about swapping the upper and lower (and therefore front and rear, as it would be insane to have the upper at the front and the lower at the rear) fiddle yards, but I worry that this might result in tighter curves on gradients than would be ideal. Indeed, the current plan is not good in this respect - the earliest plans for this alternative layout had very gentle curves on the gradients and 572mm curves on the (totally flat) reversing loop at the end. This revised version now has (especially on the Brighton line) 572mm curves on a 1.1% gradient. I do not know how, say, a Hornby T9 would cope with this. Taking out the third line here would enable these curves to be smoothed a little, but if I have to have 572mm curves on a gradient all the same because I am swapping sides, this might make things difficult.

 

Overall, I am quite hesitant to move the carriage sidings to the fiddle yards for these reasons unless a practical solution of which I have not yet thought can be found, although the advantages would be considerable if this could be accommodated in the fiddle yards without too much trouble.

 

Edit: As to centre road carriage sidings - were any of these left by the 1930s?

Edited June 29, 2018 by jamespetts

[mightbe]

1. Brighton was built by one company as the endpoint for two of its own lines, not two rival companies A great example of inter-company weirdness is London Victoria--it had 0 connections, and continued to not have any well into the 1930s. Perhaps for this fictional town there wasn't room left anywhere else to build a completely separate station--so the LBSCR crammed one in right next to the LSWR one, hoping to capitalize on connecting services and their shorter route to London. 

 

2a. Ah, I misunderstood and thought the No. 1 box controlled both throats. Never mind then.

 

3. I'd be happy to show you images of steam sheds where even the tops of the rails threatened to disappear.

 

A. There's actually plenty of room to include a direct connection to both platforms. Personally I'd imagined the sort (going right to left here) involving two adjacent RH turnouts, a diamond, and another turnout on the lead.

 

------------------

 

On the LSWR carriage sidings, I think having them in front of the station isn't a great solution. Especially since we're saying the LSWR got their first, they'd build their carriage sidings in a sensible/normal location a bit down the line. 

 

But--keeping the LBSCR ones poses no issue since they're not really blocking anything. 

 

Centrally located carriage sidings at some stations lasted into the 60s-70s. Bath Queen Street and Glasgow Queen Square both had them, as did a few other places (all outside London). I'll try to think of an SR example if I can, bearing in mind that once electrification got going new carriage sheds sprung up.

 

EDIT: Incidentally, I also considered (if this layout is actually set in the Grouping era-30s) that there be a small turntable pit (filled in) located between the ex-LBSCR approaches and the engine shed tracks. That would suggest that the SR came by and enlarged the ex-LSWR turntable (since the Peco 12" is an enormous turntable for any period before then) while getting rid of the redundant and small one (which couldn't be expanded without seriously affecting the rest of the shed). Thus, the two engine sheds had been built entirely separately and were only joined together by the SR to cut costs. (The SR was famously stingy.)

Edited June 29, 2018 by mightbe

[Zomboid]

Birmingham New Street was two independent stations, I think until BR put a shopping centre on top and rebuilt the whole place. The LNWR and MR wouldn't have run many (if any) trains between the two routes, passengers would have been expected to change trains - even through ticketing wouldn't have been available at the start. Freight would have been different, but there's none of that on this layout. Operationally this is a terminus station shared between two bitter rivals, I can't really see why they would want through running of passenger trains under any normal circumstances.

 

There are a couple of centre road carriage sidings still in use today at Euston, and I think a few LBSC termini (Bognor, Eastbourne) had the facility - it's still in use at Bognor. Though they may not have been built as such when steam was the order of the day, those were amongst the earlier electrifications. Portsmouth & Southsea terminal platforms also have space for at least one centre road, think that was LBSC too.

[Siberian Snooper]

At steam sheds it was normal for the ash to be levelled off to rail level, it prevents the sleepers from catching fire when hot ash is dropped. it also reduces the trip hazards, not that there was any elf and safety back then.

[jamespetts]

I have spent a very considerable time this afternoon attempting to merge the LSWR carriage sidings into the fiddle yards, but this has been entirely unsuccessful: there is simply insufficient space in the fiddle yards to allow for this:

 

 

Desirable as it might be to have the carriage sidings off scene, therefore, this is just not possible in the space that I have available.

 

I will be producing a revised design in due course with some other changes but without moving the LSWR carriage sidings to the fiddle yards.