Is Minories operationally satisfying?

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Ah, good point about terminology! I was thinking provincially.

 

I will change to "inbound" and "outbound".

 

Looking at a Signal Box diagram for Plymouth Millbay which was effectively a  reversing terminus, so a departing train could be going up towards London or down towards Penzance,  the GWR seems to have used "departure" and "arrival" for the passenger lines with an arrival home signal and a departure home , starter, calling on signal and so on. However, for the goods lines and the double line into and out of Millbay Docks they used up and down so presumably the "things" coming out of the docks were not by and large heading for Cornwall.

My use of inbound and outbound was a bit American. I'll be in danger of calling cowcatchers "pilots", sidings "spurs" (though Millbay had one of those too) and points "turnouts". I won't get into pair and impair because that would confuse everyone. 

 

48 minutes ago, ColinK said:

I’ve done something different in the same sort of space. Instead of a double track approach, I have two single lines going to different destinations. This means a train can arrive from one of the single lines, have the loco detatched and a new one put on the other end, then it departs on the other single track. Of course trains can also arrive and return on the same line.  It is sufficiently challenging to keep two operators engrossed. On one occasion we had four operators, one for each line, one driving the station pilot, one shunting the freight.

Can we know more about this please Colin?  It sounds a bit like Tulle or a grander version of Ft. William.

[t-b-g]

One of the features of the original Minories is that on any run into or out of he station the maximum length of the station throat, measured in points, is 4.

 

My take on it, which I have shown before, kept to that but I decided on two platforms, one of which was for departures only. I made the centre road a holding/carriage siding and added a dock for parcels, van traffic etc.

 

The layout, which is "on hold" on the scenic side but has been operated at several shows as a "work in progress" is most enjoyable to operate.

 

Here are a couple of snaps that show the basics.

 

I straightened the approach as I was able to use decent points (B7) and the reverse curve approaching the station was always something that I thought "Why would they do it like that on the real thing?"

 

Any train arriving could be dealt with in several different ways. If it was empty stock, brought in by the pilot, a big loco could back on and take it out. If it was a passenger arrival, the options were to take the stock to the carriage sidings "offstage" (Fiddle Yard) with the pilot, you could shunt the stock to either the middle road or the other platform to release the loco or you could back another train loco on to take it back out. Parcels and goods arrived in either the platform or the centre road and were shunted from there and departing parcels and freight could be made up in either platform road or he centre road, depending on occupancy.

 

Although we made the platforms longer to take 7 or 8 bogie carriages, a shorter version could esily be built to take 3 or 4 short bogie carriages on a pair of 4ft x 1ft 3" boards.

 

Perhaps it is too far removed from Minories to be called as such but it was certainly inspired by that plan.

Edited February 4, 2019 by t-b-g

[Harlequin]

2 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

clips of Minories (GN) taken in 2014

 

These are three shots I took in 2014 on a very simple  digital camera [snip]

Hi David,

 

Unfortunately YouTube says, "This video is unavailable". Could you check it, please, because I'd love to see it.

 

Thanks,

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Hi David,

 

Unfortunately YouTube says, "This video is unavailable". Could you check it, please, because I'd love to see it.

 

Thanks,

That's annoying

See if this link works

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmXgxKwPb8M&feature=youtu.be

[Harlequin]

Same problem, I'm afraid.

I wonder if it's a regional rights issue?

 

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Same problem, I'm afraid.

I wonder if it's a regional rights issue?

 

No. I think it's in the settings

I've tried changing one of them and I could then play it with my iPhone. Could you please let me know if this link works.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmXgxKwPb8M

Edited February 5, 2019 by Pacific231G

[Pacific231G]

5 hours ago, t-b-g said:

One of the features of the original Minories is that on any run into or out of he station the maximum length of the station throat, measured in points, is 4.

 

My take on it, which I have shown before, kept to that but I decided on two platforms, one of which was for departures only. I made the centre road a holding/carriage siding and added a dock for parcels, van traffic etc.

 

The layout, which is "on hold" on the scenic side but has been operated at several shows as a "work in progress" is most enjoyable to operate.

 

Here are a couple of snaps that show the basics.

 

I straightened the approach as I was able to use decent points (B7) and the reverse curve approaching the station was always something that I thought "Why would they do it like that on the real thing?"

 

Any train arriving could be dealt with in several different ways. If it was empty stock, brought in by the pilot, a big loco could back on and take it out. If it was a passenger arrival, the options were to take the stock to the carriage sidings "offstage" (Fiddle Yard) with the pilot, you could shunt the stock to either the middle road or the other platform to release the loco or you could back another train loco on to take it back out. Parcels and goods arrived in either the platform or the centre road and were shunted from there and departing parcels and freight could be made up in either platform road or he centre road, depending on occupancy.

 

Although we made the platforms longer to take 7 or 8 bogie carriages, a shorter version could esily be built to take 3 or 4 short bogie carriages on a pair of 4ft x 1ft 3" boards.

 

Perhaps it is too far removed from Minories to be called as such but it was certainly inspired by that plan.

Hello Tony

Thanks for posting these.

I'm intrigued by this arrangement. Clearly, if you do have enough length for points that can form a crossover without buffer locking then the main reason for Minories' overall reverse curve disappears but you can then also use a straight line equivalent   I find that Minories overall S shape looks abit odd when seen from the end, as if the builders aimed for the platforms but missed,  but that's far less noticeable from the side.

To get my head around your layout I tried reproducing it with anyrail using Peco long points (probably shorter than a B7) and comparing that with a more conventional main line terminus (Minories straightened out in effect but with a central stock siding insteas of a third platform) 

I think I've got your arrangement of point work right.

 

I can see that your arrival side platform is a bit longer as it starts at three points length plus a clearance from the start of the throat rather than four points length and can handle both arrivals and departures. The departure side platform. which in your layout is departure only,  is a couple of inches shorter than in the conventional layout because of the orientation of the points.  The parcels road and loco siding behave the same in both plans and the central stock siding has access to both the up and down main line. 

Will you work this as separate arrivals and departures platforms and was that still common practice before the grouping or will you be using the longer arrival side platform as the principal road for the longest trains? The former probably does require more moves, a disadvantage at full size but for a layout the more the merrier.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 5, 2019 by Pacific231G

[DCB]

For me a Station with centre road between platforms or Carriage sidings beside the platforms is the next step up from Minories if it is to be a genuine terminus, as in starting and terminating trains.  

I very much enjoy seeing trains arriving and departing simultaneously, or even better a shunt pushing in as a train arrives is very visually satisfying.

Some termini like Swansea, Bath Green Park and Bodmin GWR behaved or generally behaved like through stations with trains arriving and departing again with a fresh loco on the back but with most passengers remaining on the train and very few passengers alighting or joining. 

Apart from the "Through Terminals" many termini saw very few trains by present day standards but had lots of trains loitering around, trains due to depart an hour apart would be waiting together and woe betide the unwary passenger  who got on the wrong one.

 

The "Improved Minories" plans above tackle some minor issues and cause some major ones.   See below. Minorie allows access to all platforms from both incoming and outgoing lines.  The upper one only has one arrival line would be very awkward in the morning peak, but could be eased by making the centre road a platform road , as per doodle, the bottom one has a very short arrivals platform whereas really it needs to be longer than the departure platform, which is actually the original Minories failing

.  I did a schematic of Minories for comparison and it is by far the best for operations.   The only really awkward feature  the longest platform on the departures side can be worked around by the longest trains using that platform Imagine having three trains arrive in half an hour. Minories can cope but the other two would be hard pushed to manage two..   

The dreaded "Parcels Bay" keeps cropping up. Plenty of main line stations managed very well without a parcels bay.  Ordinary platforms  were often used for parcels outside the peaks. In at least one case a platform was used for Milk Tanks outside the peaks with pipes provided.   

A bit of time table planning, Morning peak, off peak service, Evening peak, off peak/parcels depart/ arrive Morning peak again would ease out the platforming issues.    

Edited February 5, 2019 by DavidCBroad

[Harlequin]

8 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

No. I think it's in the settings

I've tried changing one of them and I could then play it with my iPhone. Could you please let me know if this link works.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmXgxKwPb8M

Thanks David (Pacific), That works now and it's interesting to see the original reverse curves in the platform lines which look a bit odd on plan but are sweeping enough not to cause any problems and which enhance the viewing experience.

 

Your overhead shows the potential for buffer locking on the entry to platform 1 but if stock is only ever hauled over that route, never propelled, and your couplings have a bit of slack, or hold the vehicles apart like Hornby hook and bar couplings (not ideal, I know) then that would be much less of a problem. Wouldn't it?

 

Even in Classic Minories I think it might be possible to avoid ever propelling over that route. For instance putting ECS into platform 1 can be done from the outbound line - and even if the move doesn't start on the outbound line it can be used as a headshunt.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Harlequin

[ColinK]

15 hours ago, ColinK said:

I’ve done something different in the same sort of space. Instead of a double track approach, I have two single lines going to different destinations. This means a train can arrive from one of the single lines, have the loco detatched and a new one put on the other end, then it departs on the other single track. Of course trains can also arrive and return on the same line.  It is sufficiently challenging to keep two operators engrossed. On one occasion we had four operators, one for each line, one driving the station pilot, one shunting the freight.

 

I didn’t expect to be asked to explain further. Although I had’t thought about it, operationally my layout is a bit like Fort William with lines to Glasgow and Mallaig, indeed something similar should be really interesting to operate, perhaps more interesting than Minories as passenger working can be split and rejoined. Another location you could use is Norwich.  However, my layout is of a  more mainline location.  With a bit (quite a lot actually) of imagination its more like ‘honey, I shrunk Kings Cross’, and even has a suburban line disappearing like York Road. 

[Fenman]

22 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

That Norwich City arrangement does look interesting. OS map is probably wrong but seems to show that arrival only possible on two of the four platforms (i.e. no facing crossover).

 

I think the first set of facing crossovers is a little little further out - by Mile Post 51 on this edition:

https://maps.nls.uk/view/120851828

 

I really must set this up to play with!

 

Paul 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

10 minutes ago, Fenman said:

 

I think the first set of facing crossovers is a little little further out - by Mile Post 51 on this edition:

https://maps.nls.uk/view/120851828

 

I really must set this up to play with!

 

Paul 

 

 

I did see that. But it looks like a double crossing to get trains into the goods yard rather than a facing connection for passenger trains.

 

Will investigate further and see if I can find a signalling diagram.

[t-b-g]

9 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Hello Tony

Thanks for posting these.

I'm intrigued by this arrangement. Clearly, if you do have enough length for points that can form a crossover without buffer locking then the main reason for Minories' overall reverse curve disappears but you can then also use a straight line equivalent   I find that Minories overall S shape looks abit odd when seen from the end, as if the builders aimed for the platforms but missed,  but that's far less noticeable from the side.

To get my head around your layout I tried reproducing it with anyrail using Peco long points (probably shorter than a B7) and comparing that with a more conventional main line terminus (Minories straightened out in effect but with a central stock siding insteas of a third platform) 

I think I've got your arrangement of point work right.

 

I can see that your arrival side platform is a bit longer as it starts at three points length plus a clearance from the start of the throat rather than four points length and can handle both arrivals and departures. The departure side platform. which in your layout is departure only,  is a couple of inches shorter than in the conventional layout because of the orientation of the points.  The parcels road and loco siding behave the same in both plans and the central stock siding has access to both the up and down main line. 

Will you work this as separate arrivals and departures platforms and was that still common practice before the grouping or will you be using the longer arrival side platform as the principal road for the longest trains? The former probably does require more moves, a disadvantage at full size but for a layout the more the merrier.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have that exactly right! I did seriously consider your second option, which allows arrivals and departures from both platforms but decided that the extra shunting of stock from the arrival side to the departure side gave me an extra move that otherwise wouldn't have been needed. We mixed and matched departures from both platforms but we never got as far as arranging an operating sequence. The operator would decide if the next train was to be an arrival or a departure and if the arrival platform was needed, any stock there would be shunted out. If the train in the arrival platform went out again before anything else arrived, it went from there. We often had three trains in the station at any time, one in each platform plus one in the centre road or he loading dock, as per the second photo. That made it look like a nice busy station. A 4th could arrive if the right track was clear but then something had to leave before anything else could happen.

 

Trains could arrive and depart at the same time in theory but due to the design of the fiddle yard, with a single track approach and a shunting neck, simultaneous moves were limited to an arrival or a departure plus a shunting move alongside. We had wiring in place to allow a loco trapped at the buffers to follow the departing train up the platform.

 

We put the curve in the platforms as it mirrored the curve at Chesterfield Market Place (the layout is called Mansfield Market Place and the buildings are based on Chesterfield) and because tracks that are not parallel with the baseboard edge are something I find more appealing visually.

 

There was limited space for scenic work but we did have room for a market scene beyond the station.

 

 It is a nice layout to play trains on and although it is stalled at the moment I may well finish it one day! 

[t-b-g]

4 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

For me a Station with centre road between platforms or Carriage sidings beside the platforms is the next step up from Minories if it is to be a genuine terminus, as in starting and terminating trains.  

I very much enjoy seeing trains arriving and departing simultaneously, or even better a shunt pushing in as a train arrives is very visually satisfying.

Some termini like Swansea, Bath Green Park and Bodmin GWR behaved or generally behaved like through stations with trains arriving and departing again with a fresh loco on the back but with most passengers remaining on the train and very few passengers alighting or joining. 

Apart from the "Through Terminals" many termini saw very few trains by present day standards but had lots of trains loitering around, trains due to depart an hour apart would be waiting together and woe betide the unwary passenger  who got on the wrong one.

 

The "Improved Minories" plans above tackle some minor issues and cause some major ones.   See below. Minorie allows access to all platforms from both incoming and outgoing lines.  The upper one only has one arrival line would be very awkward in the morning peak, but could be eased by making the centre road a platform road , as per doodle, the bottom one has a very short arrivals platform whereas really it needs to be longer than the departure platform, which is actually the original Minories failing

.  I did a schematic of Minories for comparison and it is by far the best for operations.   The only really awkward feature  the longest platform on the departures side can be worked around by the longest trains using that platform Imagine having three trains arrive in half an hour. Minories can cope but the other two would be hard pushed to manage two..   

The dreaded "Parcels Bay" keeps cropping up. Plenty of main line stations managed very well without a parcels bay.  Ordinary platforms  were often used for parcels outside the peaks. In at least one case a platform was used for Milk Tanks outside the peaks with pipes provided.   

A bit of time table planning, Morning peak, off peak service, Evening peak, off peak/parcels depart/ arrive Morning peak again would ease out the platforming issues.    

 

All those are quite valid points and were thought about before my plan was finalised. My setting of a provincial town rather than a London suburban environment really caters for any need for more than one arrival platform as there is no "rush hour". I based that idea of arriving in one but being able to depart from either on the short Midland branch to Sutton Town. That was a similar sized station to mine in a similar environment so I nicked the idea from there as being correct and appropriate. To be fair, that was worked mostly by a "push pull" but did have run round facilities for the arrival platform.

 

The name of the station, Mansfield Market Place, gives a clue to the purpose of the loading dock. The eventual plan was to justify a short fish train plus perhaps meat and a horse box special now and then for the local hunts. Of course it was always "market day" when we operated. If a station only has two platforms, tying one for them up for a while to unload or load such trains might have caused a problem and I am not sure that a passenger using a platform after a train full of horses had been loaded up would be very happy with the state of their shoes!

 

But for a city suburban terminus, I would agree with all you say. 

[Pacific231G]

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Thanks David (Pacific), That works now and it's interesting to see the original reverse curves in the platform lines which look a bit odd on plan but are sweeping enough not to cause any problems and which enhance the viewing experience.

 

Your overhead shows the potential for buffer locking on the entry to platform 1 but if stock is only ever hauled over that route, never propelled, and your couplings have a bit of slack, or hold the vehicles apart like Hornby hook and bar couplings (not ideal, I know) then that would be much less of a problem. Wouldn't it?

 

Even in Classic Minories I think it might be possible to avoid ever propelling over that route. For instance putting ECS into platform 1 can be done from the outbound line - and even if the move doesn't start on the outbound line it can be used as a headshunt.

Thank goodness for that. I hope my very low resolution shots were worth the wait.

Tom didn't have a problem with buffer locking because they use Kadee couplers on Minories (GN). I use them too but, while they make buffer locking apparent not actual, it's a bit disconcerting, especially with corridor stock, to see the buffers and even more the vestibules miles apart.In order to stay  as close as possible to the original Minories plan, they were using much tighter points- B5 or possibly B4.5-  than they were used to in EM, 

Even with buffing couplers like Kadee or tension locks where the side buffers are not actually in contact you do tend to get derailments when propelling if the side forces are too great. If you're running DMUs or EMUs, they're also likely to be propelled in one direction.

[Claude_Dreyfus]

I took the Minories concept to an extreme with my old Japanese layout. Very simple plan, but one that kept me occupied for hours on end (it easily sustained me over a two day show).

[Nearholmer]

Zen and the art of CJF.

 

did you carefully take the ballast into patterns?

[Pacific231G]

10 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

For me a Station with centre road between platforms or Carriage sidings beside the platforms is the next step up from Minories if it is to be a genuine terminus, as in starting and terminating trains.  

I very much enjoy seeing trains arriving and departing simultaneously, or even better a shunt pushing in as a train arrives is very visually satisfying.

Some termini like Swansea, Bath Green Park and Bodmin GWR behaved or generally behaved like through stations with trains arriving and departing again with a fresh loco on the back but with most passengers remaining on the train and very few passengers alighting or joining. 

Apart from the "Through Terminals" many termini saw very few trains by present day standards but had lots of trains loitering around, trains due to depart an hour apart would be waiting together and woe betide the unwary passenger  who got on the wrong one.

 

The "Improved Minories" plans above tackle some minor issues and cause some major ones.   See below. Minorie allows access to all platforms from both incoming and outgoing lines.  The upper one only has one arrival line would be very awkward in the morning peak, but could be eased by making the centre road a platform road , as per doodle, the bottom one has a very short arrivals platform whereas really it needs to be longer than the departure platform, which is actually the original Minories failing

.  I did a schematic of Minories for comparison and it is by far the best for operations.   The only really awkward feature  the longest platform on the departures side can be worked around by the longest trains using that platform Imagine having three trains arrive in half an hour. Minories can cope but the other two would be hard pushed to manage two..   

The dreaded "Parcels Bay" keeps cropping up. Plenty of main line stations managed very well without a parcels bay.  Ordinary platforms  were often used for parcels outside the peaks. In at least one case a platform was used for Milk Tanks outside the peaks with pipes provided.   

A bit of time table planning, Morning peak, off peak service, Evening peak, off peak/parcels depart/ arrive Morning peak again would ease out the platforming issues.    

Hi David

I didn't see my plan as an "improved" Minories but did want to compare it with TBG's layout by replacing one of the platform roads  with a stock siding, fairly common for termini that started out with a separate arrival and departure platform on opposite sides of a train shed. 

 

This is a more direct transposition of the original Minories to a linear arrangement and you should notice that a three platform throat requires almost no more length than two platforms.

 

Though I've drawn this using 3ft radius points (Peco Medium) I wouldn't use it unless I was either running very short pre-grouping coaches  or had room for crossovers long enough to not give buffer locking. 

You can add a central stock siding between the two platforms without losing platform three. Brian Thomas did this with his O scale "Newford" which was, apart from that, a direct upscaling of the original CJF plan. It did add to the operating potential as did using the loco siding for sundries traffic.

 

I think the lens angle I used for the final shot does rather overemphasise the sharpness of the reverse curve in the throat. I don't remember being that conscious of it from the side. The main baseboard was six feet long  and its length was entirely occupied by the throat pointwork (so all the pointwork apart from the points for the stock siding)

 

A very nice layout and, when Brian Thomas sold it to David D'arcy he incorporated it in its entirety into "Littleton"  just adding an EMU depot and some stock sidings.  I don't know if it's still around. I last saw it at Watford Fine Scale in 2011 and there is a video of it at that show on Youtube .  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=707lHpl8bVM

 

 

 

Edited February 5, 2019 by Pacific231G

[The Stationmaster]

20 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Looking at a Signal Box diagram for Plymouth Millbay which was effectively a  reversing terminus, so a departing train could be going up towards London or down towards Penzance,  the GWR seems to have used "departure" and "arrival" for the passenger lines with an arrival home signal and a departure home , starter, calling on signal and so on. However, for the goods lines and the double line into and out of Millbay Docks they used up and down so presumably the "things" coming out of the docks were not by and large heading for Cornwall.

My use of inbound and outbound was a bit American. I'll be in danger of calling cowcatchers "pilots", sidings "spurs" (though Millbay had one of those too) and points "turnouts". I won't get into pair and impair because that would confuse everyone. 

 

 

Millbay was unusual in that the names of the running lines changed partway through the layout.  Thus the Down Main Line became the Arrival Line at the Inner Home Signal and the Departure Line became the Up Main Line at the Advanced Starting Signal.  It's possible that this arrangement had something to do with individual levers on each platform locking the Inner Home signal but that is really surmise on my part.

 

As far as passenger trains towards Devonport  etc and Cornwall were concerned they were on the Up Main Line from Millbay's Advanced Starting Signal to entering the Devonport direction line from Cornwall Junction were they were on the Down Line.

[Pacific231G]

31 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Millbay was unusual in that the names of the running lines changed partway through the layout.  Thus the Down Main Line became the Arrival Line at the Inner Home Signal and the Departure Line became the Up Main Line at the Advanced Starting Signal.  It's possible that this arrangement had something to do with individual levers on each platform locking the Inner Home signal but that is really surmise on my part.

 

As far as passenger trains towards Devonport  etc and Cornwall were concerned they were on the Up Main Line from Millbay's Advanced Starting Signal to entering the Devonport direction line from Cornwall Junction were they were on the Down Line.

Thanks Mike

There is a  signalbox diagram for Millbay in Potts' book for about 1920 but I've no idea how complete it is, This shows a ground frame at the buffer end of platforms 2&3 for the scissors crossover and FPLs beween them which is unlocked by the signal box but no indication of any platform locking levers for the inner home which had a "theatre" indicator. 

 

Robert Ley's S.B. diagram for Fort William in 1955 does show a 5 lever GF at the end of platforms 2&3 with a "control lever" (FPL?)  a single lever for the crossover and slot levers for the three incoming home signals to enable the platform staff to confirm a platform was clear before allowing the signalbox to clear its signal. 

 

(*Millbay had two platforms with four platform faces but no. 1 platform  was short with the main buildings beyond it facing onto no.2 platform.) 

[The Stationmaster]

10 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Thanks Mike

There is a  signalbox diagram for Millbay in Potts' book for about 1920 but I've no idea how complete it is, This shows a ground frame at the buffer end of platforms 2&3 for the scissors crossover and FPLs beween them which is unlocked by the signal box but no indication of any platform locking levers for the inner home which had a "theatre" indicator. 

 

Robert Ley's S.B. diagram for Fort William in 1955 does show a 5 lever GF at the end of platforms 2&3 with a "control lever" (FPL?)  a single lever for the crossover and slot levers for the three incoming home signals to enable the platform staff to confirm a platform was clear before allowing the signalbox to clear its signal. 

 

(*Millbay had two platforms with four platform faces but no. 1 platform  was short with the main buildings beyond it facing onto no.2 platform.) 

Apparently the platform levers locking the Inner Home Signal at Millbay were removed c.1922 when track circuits were provided  according to Larry Crosier's superb book on signalling in the Plymouth area.

 

The Fort Wlliam slot levers sound as if they performed exactly the same function as the levers at Millbay.  Larry referred to the Millbay ones as 'locking the Inner Home Signal' and not as slots so presumably from what he found out they didn't work as slots - which in any case would have been rather complicated to arrange on a signal with a mechanical route indicator.

[Karhedron]

On 05/02/2019 at 06:02, DavidCBroad said:

The dreaded "Parcels Bay" keeps cropping up. Plenty of main line stations managed very well without a parcels bay.  Ordinary platforms  were often used for parcels outside the peaks. In at least one case a platform was used for Milk Tanks outside the peaks with pipes provided.  

 

Which Terminus handled milk tanks at a platform? I know Marylebone received milk tanks but I think the IMS bottling plant had its own platform that was also used for fish traffic rather than using a passenger platform. I know Vauxhall had pipes fitted to handle milk but that is a through station.

[Pacific231G]

19 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

Which Terminus handled milk tanks at a platform? I know Marylebone received milk tanks but I think the IMS bottling plant had its own platform that was also used for fish traffic rather than using a passenger platform. I know Vauxhall had pipes fitted to handle milk but that is a through station.

Marylebone did inded have a separate platform for milk (and fish?) traffic, at least according to this diagram Marylebone signalbox diagram 1945

It was on the other side of the Rossmore Road  bridge so would have been well separated from the main station. Marylebone didn't have any passenger bays (though it does now !) Several of the London termini did have sort of bay platforms but they tended to almost be separate stations as with Kings Cross Suburban or Bishops's Bridge at Paddington.

 

In terms of passenger handling at a large terminus, the catch with short bay platforms is that passengers have to trudge (or sometimes canter!) most of the length of the station to reach them. Anyone familiar with platforms 13 & 14 at Paddington will know this only too well. By the time they announced your train you didn't have time to dawdle to walk most of the length of platform 12 to get to it from the main concourse. Getting to platforms 4,5 & 6 at Marylebone is also a  bit of a schlepp. Technically, platform 7 at Ealing Broadway (In the once separate District Railway  station) is a bay but it's almost as long as 8 and 9 and simply provides level access from platforms  4-6. 

You often seem to find this at stations originally built with a separate departures and an arrivals platform particularly under  a train shed. When the development of traffic, particularly commuter traffic, required more platforms, than would fit in the trainshed  they had to go beyond it.

[Nearholmer]

Windsor and Eton Riverside?

 

Very nice station in all sorts of ways, although perhaps a bit too rationalised for modelling purposes these days.

[RJS1977]

Though would make a very impressive model if modelled with the river facing the viewer and the castle behind the station!