Great Southern Railway (Fictitious) - Signalling the changes...

[Skinnylinny]

The bay is mainly for end-loading goods (carriage trucks), and milk/parcels/goods that run in NPCCS, although there is a possibility of it being converted to use for railmotors at a later date. For the NPCCS, there's nothing stopping that being shunted carefully across all sorts of pointwork by the train engine where necessary.

Given that this is a terminal station, speeds would (hopefully!) be low by here. I don't know whether that would affect the aversion to facing points.

[Regularity]

Here’s what I sketched out.

 

If the bay is just for parcels, etc, then you don’t need the “bypass” at all and just need the single slip.

If the bay is for arriving trains, then the bypass is a better idea than a double slip, as it would allow for arrivals into the bay whilst stock was moved from the arrival to the departure route.

 

 

You might want to look up some prototype stations of the era, especially Bromley (North) SER station, which was used by Geoff Stenner as the basis for his Scale7 Oakhurst layout. RM Dec 2001/Jan 2002, also viewable here: http://www.uckfieldmrc.co.uk/exhib06/oakhurst.html

[Skinnylinny]

Oh! I forgot to mention that this is only the station throat. There is a loco release at the other end of the platforms. I can see the logic of only using trailing crossovers here, though. Thank you.

[Nearholmer]

Back to a point I raised earlier.

 

A lot of this depends on the rate of arrivals and departures that you need to maintain.

 

The Bromley North, and other SER termini, layout is terribly restrictive on the frequency of service.

 

A ‘Minories’ topology allows a much higher rate, but even that has its restrictions, because it doesn’t permit the full gamut of parallel arrival and departure moves.

 

If you want the highest capacity you can get, you need to add ’bypasses’, as Regularity suggests, and operate in strict order to capitalise on their use with parallel arrivals and departures.

 

Baker Street (Met) was the ultimate in this. It had four platforms (still does), the centre two of which continued onwards, and it had a layout that permitted every parallel move possible ..... loadsa points, jammed into a tiny space. It could accommodate c24 trains in each direction every hour, of which about half terminated, and it could maintain this if the through roads were blocked, so had to be operated as terminal roads.

 

Railways were well beyond obsessive avoidance of facing points at termini by the date that you are looking at, because they had decent facing-point locks, and they had customers and shareholders to satisfy.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Regularity]

Depends if, say, 4 trains an hour is a severe restriction or acceptable in prototype terms.

Also depends on when the line was built, and whether the traffic justified rebuilding. Don’t forget that the Midland managed to have only a single facing point on the Settle and Carlisle line, and never changed it during their existence. (But there are many strange things about the Midland!)

 

Having operated Oakhurst on several occasions, I can tell you that it was never restricting of my enjoyment!

 

But if you want a complex approach “throat”, you could consider a scissors crossover which also includes a 3-way and a single slip and even a double slip, and indeed consider having a scissors crossover for loco release purposes - as at Oban.

 

It is possible to do what a railway would do with something like minories, and add an extra crossover (from the middle platform road to the departure road) to create the extra flexibility to support multiple movements: the steam age railway did this a lot, but the modern railway tends to try to restrict the number of turnouts and remove diamond crossings. One good reason to be careful when looking at the current scene!

 

But Kevin raises an interesting point. He is obviously enthused about the arrival and departure of trains on an intensive service. I am more interested in train disposal and makeup, and the use of station pilots to move coaches and release engines. To me, the intensity comes from this shuttling back and forth.

YMMV

Edited March 4, 2018 by Regularity

[Nearholmer]

Years, and years, and some more years, of working on urban and suburban railways, forever trying to squeeze more capacity out; the thinking gets into the psyche!

 

But, what’s sauce for the real railway is very often not sauce, but extreme tedium, on a model railway. All that dreadfully wasteful stuff that Regularity mentions is great fun with toy trains, which is why I just spent half an hour shunting two horse boxes to the front of a train on my layout.

 

You do need to get this train service frequency thing nailed, though.

[Regularity]

Aye. People on here can advise on what a real railway might have done in certain circumstances at a certain time, but the overall objectives and pattern have to be your decision.

[Skinnylinny]

Goodness, lots to think about. I'm thinking 4 trains an hour is at the high end of what I'm expecting to run from here, occurring maybe once or twice during peak times, being much quieter (maybe 1-2 trains an hour?) off-peak, at least as far as passenger services go. Simultaneous arrivals and departures might be a bit more than I can handle, but it would definitely be nice to be able to get away with one train arriving while a departing train is still stood at the platform (with the associated knock-on effect to the timing of the new train being able to prepare for departure). 

I'm definitely happier having a bit of a challenge when it comes to shunting, so I don't mind having several reversing moves to get to/from the bay. I'm wondering if perhaps I should include a headshunt to allow shunting to continue while the passenger lines are in use. This would also have the advantage of filling a little more of the space at the front left, and could also conceivably allow a pilot to be stashed away if needed for shifting stock around during busy periods.

As for complicated trackwork, I was really hoping to make use of Peco's rather nice bullhead streamline track, which currently puts 3-way and interlaced pointwork firmly in the "No way" category. I've never built a turnout, and while I do plan on having a go at some point, I want the trackwork on this layout to work first time, which for my current skill level means RTP track.

[Caley Jim]

..... and indeed consider having a scissors crossover for loco release purposes - as at Oban.

 

The rebuilt Glasgow Central not only had scissors crossovers for loco release, but a second scissors half way along the platform so that two trains could be accommodated and the inner one could still get out, provided there was not one at the outer end of the adjacent road.

 

Regarding the present scene, there is a tandem turnout in regular use at the East mouth of the North bore of the Mound Tunnel as you come into Waverley station from the west, mostly used in a facing direction.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Caley Jim

[Nearholmer]

A scissors on the lead-in to a terminus is a fantastic space-saver, but in reality a real worry, because any fault, in any part, will cripple the service. The Victoria Line on LU is entirely reliant on one, on the lead-in to Brixton, where two platforms now operate a service of 36 trains per hour, in each direction (automatic operation - it’s hard to get above 24tph with manual). That scissors gets more attention than a newborn baby to make sure that it doesn’t get unwell.

 

Read all about installing another junction on the Victoria Line here to get an idea of what is involved https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2015/08/25/photos-rebuilding-a-victoria-line-crossover-junction/

Edited March 5, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Regularity]

Goodness, lots to think about. I'm thinking 4 trains an hour is at the high end of what I'm expecting to run from here, occurring maybe once or twice during peak times, being much quieter (maybe 1-2 trains an hour?) off-peak, at least as far as passenger services go. Simultaneous arrivals and departures might be a bit more than I can handle, but it would definitely be nice to be able to get away with one train arriving while a departing train is still stood at the platform (with the associated knock-on effect to the timing of the new train being able to prepare for departure). 

I'm definitely happier having a bit of a challenge when it comes to shunting, so I don't mind having several reversing moves to get to/from the bay. I'm wondering if perhaps I should include a headshunt to allow shunting to continue while the passenger lines are in use. This would also have the advantage of filling a little more of the space at the front left, and could also conceivably allow a pilot to be stashed away if needed for shifting stock around during busy periods.

As for complicated trackwork, I was really hoping to make use of Peco's rather nice bullhead streamline track, which currently puts 3-way and interlaced pointwork firmly in the "No way" category. I've never built a turnout, and while I do plan on having a go at some point, I want the trackwork on this layout to work first time, which for my current skill level means RTP track.

I would suggest, for all the reasons you mention, going with the single-slip with bypass option; just because you can have simultaneous arrivals and departures doesn’t mean you have to, but it’s more interesting to have the choice!

During quiet periods, the arrival platform (2?) might also be used for departures, with the lowermost platform (platform 4? If indeed it is a platform and not a goods siding*) used to store stock ready for the next rush hour, or maybe stored overnight ready for the morning services? Platform 3 is required for running round, and also some departures, e.g. if a goods train is scheduled to arrive.

 

* If it is, you will benefit from adding a headshunt, parallel to the up line.

[Skinnylinny]

Some interesting thoughts, thank you all. I'm designing this based on the idea that the bay platform is only used for storing wagons, and that there will be no services arriving at or departing from that platform. As such, there's no need for a bypass line, or to have direct access to the bay from the Down Line, so a single slip will suffice (unless I decide to use the bay for passenger service when modelling later dates). There are only two passenger platforms, the bottom two roads on the diagram being purely goods sidings and not accessible from Platform 1 (there being a fence along the back of the platform.

 

Playing around with the idea of a single slip has given me the following diagram:

 

I can't really move the turnout that gives access to the sidings - move it to the left, the headshunt gets shorter. Move it to the right, Platform 1 gets shorter. Either way, this layout feels a little awkward to me, and I can't quite put my finger on it. I'm still tempted to lean more towards this plan (with the entrance crossover reversed and a double slip for entering/exiting the yard).


 

[sem34090]

Please excuse my asking again, but how is your G6 order coming along? I finally heard back on mine today.

 

I am liking the plan, but think the second one looks a bit more plausible. I know nothing about trackwork, however!

[Skinnylinny]

Oops, I forgot to reply to you, sem34090. Sorry about that! I've fired an email back to i.materialise, telling them to go ahead, but haven't heard anything back from them since.

[sem34090]

No problem!

 

Hopefully future models won't need all this faffing!

[Caley Jim]

I too think the second plan looks better and has more operating potential.  You can always extend the platforms a little to the left by having the ramps tapering as the goods platform and goods sidings 'close in' on the main lines.

 

Jim

[Regularity]

I can't really move the turnout that gives access to the sidings - move it to the left, the headshunt gets shorter. Move it to the right, Platform 1 gets shorter. Either way, this layout feels a little awkward to me, and I can't quite put my finger on it. I'm still tempted to lean more towards this plan (with the entrance crossover reversed and a double slip for entering/exiting the yard).

 

To me, that is the essence of a Victorian Railway. Two comments on platform 1.

Firstly, it can be longer, tapering to a narrow ramp to the left hand of the platform. Secondly, as it is only for departures, the platform does not need to accommodate the engine resting on the stop blocks, so it can be shorter.

Also, platform 3 could be for parcels, etc, and even have a cattle dock on it - or indeed the goods shed, with the other two roads given over to access for horses and carts, including coal merchants who typically would either transfer coal in bulk for transshipment to their offices/wharves, or even load directly from wagon to sack, the sacks being put on the back of a dray for delivery either to the office/wharf or direct to customers. No requirement for a dedicated coal siding unless you really want one!

Terminus with kickback sidings(2).jpg

 

You have a facing access into the goods siding, which I think it less likely than Kevin thinks.

To be honest, you may or may not view this as a good thing, but it looks too Cyril Freezer. Not only that, you can only use one road for departures, and trains arriving into that platform cannot be as long as into the other road. You will find this plan far more frustrating in the long run, but it is your layout.

[Skinnylinny]

Unfortunately, any goods shed being built over the bay platform road would have to be a very slender structure, as this track is hard up against a retaining wall. I'm still pondering some form of covering for this platform, but I thought that having as many goods facilities (as opposed to parcels/milk) as possible centered in the yard might be ideal for the railway company.

On the second plan, I was envisioning any (short! I've already mentioned there is a larger yard a little way offscene) goods trains arriving straight into Platform 1, to leave Platform 2 clear for any incoming passenger arrivals. This dictates the direction of the crossover between up and down lines.

Regarding facing access into the sidings, this has occurred almost by accident in this case simply because the points to access the sidings happened to fall where the crossover between platform roads is.

I could only really use one road for departures in any case - once one line has a train ready to depart, I can't run the loco around the other train to prepare it to depart. Platform 2 is a strictly arrivals-only road in this plan, unless I add another crossover, but I don't think I have quite enough space. Besides, given that Platform 2 is long enough for the longest train I envisage running (an H class with 3 birdcage coaches - technically out of my time period but Rule 1 applies), I should have little trouble "only" running 2 bogie coach trains into Platform 1, if I extend the platform into the tapering gap as you suggest.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Skinnylinny

[Regularity]

I could only really use one road for departures in any case - once one line has a train ready to depart, I can't run the loco around the other train to prepare it to depart.

No, but you can bring another engine down onto it, from the (off-scene) MPD...

I think your best bet is to look at real station layouts for the size of town and period that matches your needs, to see how they handled traffic. They don’t have to be of any specific company, just to get you an idea of what a real railway station might look like. Others, including you, may disagree.

 

My opinion - which is only worth the electrons used to convey the message, if that - is that option 1 looks like a model of a Victorian railway, but option 2 looks like a model railway. It’s a subtle difference, possibly, but there is a major difference in approach between a model railway and a model of a railway. Which you choose is entirely up to you, and neither is the “best” approach. It is more a case of which is right for you.

[Edwardian]

Please excuse my asking again, but how is your G6 order coming along? I finally heard back on mine today.

 

I am liking the plan, but think the second one looks a bit more plausible. I know nothing about trackwork, however!

 

I didn't realise the G6 was ready to order?

[Edwardian]

I would have thought the goods platform would have a canopy to protect the newspapers, parcels and perishables unloaded there from passenger rate vans.

[Regularity]

I too think the second plan looks better and has more operating potential.

That’s the fun part of this hobby: I think the reverse of both these points!

This doesn’t help you directly - and neither of us will be offended if you take the other’s advice - but as he says in his signature, it’s your model so make it how you like.

 

At least you will have considered the alternatives, and won’t suddenly go, “Oh why didn’t I think of that before I got this far advanced?”

[Nearholmer]

Facing access to goods sidings at a terminus: very common, if the intensity of service (back to that old topic) was low enough to permit shunting on the main without interfering with traffic. If shunting was going to impede traffic, they added a headshunt and/or goods reception road.

 

Conversely, there were plenty of places where great pains had been taken at some point(!) to make sure that the sidings didn’t diverge from the passenger line, even though the intensity of traffic was very low, Moretonhampsted is a quite well known example.

 

From what I can discern, date played some part in this, as confidence in FPLs and traps grew, both designers and the BoT became more comfortable with facing points used in this way, but some companies were definitely more particular than others.

 

Some different approaches (another pun) are illustrated below. Seafood has very careful layout with headshunt to both yards. Windsor gets lucky, because the yard is on the side it is. Kemp Town was designed by Cyril Freezer, with a neat tunnel into a chalk cliff to hide the FY. Ventnor ditto.

 

The Windsor one must be post-electrification, because it had a scissors for loco release in the two main platforms at an earlie4 date.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Nearholmer

[sem34090]

The G6 is available to order to some people, yourself included for, ahem, testing.

 

But best to wait until my own and Linny's have arrived before ordering! There's been a few, ahem, issues.

[Skinnylinny]

I would have thought the goods platform would have a canopy to protect the newspapers, parcels and perishables unloaded there from passenger rate vans.

I'm still figuring out how I want to do this - it'll probably be a canopy attached to the retaining wall on one side, possibly (almost certainly) with support pillars on Platform 2. There may end up being a parcels office built under the access ramp down to the platform. I'm still playing around with this.

 

That’s the fun part of this hobby: I think the reverse of both these points!

This doesn’t help you directly - and neither of us will be offended if you take the other’s advice - but as he says in his signature, it’s your model so make it how you like.

 

At least you will have considered the alternatives, and won’t suddenly go, “Oh why didn’t I think of that before I got this far advanced?”

Agreed! I could definitely sit here for weeks, if not years, debating the finer points of what would be most efficient, more fun to operate, more prototypical. There's a lot to think about, and it is fascinating, but if I'm not careful, I'll end up planning forever and never lay any track! I suppose at the end of the day, as you say, it's my model and I'm doing this for pleasure. Ah, but if I had a room about two feet longer... but I suppose the real-life engineers in this sort of situation would have similar thoughts.