Nether Madder and Green Soudley Rly

[McRuss]

Hello Martin,

 

here a version that might work for you, simple use the runround track from Platform 2 as your throughtrack and change the mainline curve on the inside of the carriage sidings with the outermost carriagesiding track.

 

 

Markus

[Martin S-C]

31 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

Hoist by your own Petard! 

Yes, exactly, you can do all of that at a through station, and then there are the extra through services to add more operations.

With a suitable back story you can terminate main line trains at the station even though it's not a terminus.

 

Yes, but, but... I like buffer stops!

[Martin S-C]

And thusly...

[Caley Jim]

1 hour ago, McRuss said:

....change the mainline curve on the inside of the carriage sidings with the outermost carriagesiding track.

I was just about to suggest that!  It puts the bulk of your shunting movements clear of the continuous run and also widens the radius of the curve.  The problem I see with your latest version is the through run using Platform 3/4 means that platform 4 can't be used for the branch train shuttle unless you move the facing crossover by the signal box to the left of the turnout splitting 3/4, which would allow 3 to be used for the continuous.

 

Just a thought,

 

Jim

[Nearholmer]

That station is getting so awkward to operate that it looks realistic!

 

Its like one of those places that grew organically, and by the 1930s was driving everyone so insane that a huge rationalisation project was undertaken to sort it out.

 

Do you envisage terminating the branch train at one of the through platforms, or does it go the whole way round the layout and terminate at the terminal platforms?

 

I actually like the second option, and am beginning to see this as a terminus-to-terminus layout, with a big time-delay store (the FY) en-route, plus a sneak-track to allow circulation in idle moments.

 

Is that the intent, or a happy accident?

[Martin S-C]

That was my intent all along, I just led you lot down a long winding garden path so that you would all feel self-satisfied and useful.

I agree with what you say - the station of Nether Madder has grown organically although the demands of travellers and traffic managers caused the changes to happen in 40 forum posts instead of 40 years. I think I see the original station circa 1860 as platforms 1 & 2 which would be only about 300ft long with a modest goods yard and perhaps a simple 2 road shed without turning facilities where the carriage sidings now are. The line's main reason for existing was the traffic from the Dean Sollers Colliery which ran mostly away from the town towards the S Wales docks, the collieries private sidings having replaced a 3ft gauge horse tramway. Some traffic however was moved in the Gloucester direction as well as train loads of domestic coal for the town's good citizens and the local industries (principally a gas works, a small brewery and a tinplate factory).

After a while, say the 1880s, tourism traffic made the towns railway requirements increase several fold in the summer months; trains were lengthened, tender engines introduced and eventually platforms 1 & 2 were extended to 450 ft, carriage sidings laid to hold the tourist stock and the MPD enlarged and moved to the north side of the line to include a turntable and more imposing shed. This released space to allow the three goods sidings to be lengthened.

There was much discussion about doubling the track but this never transpired but a small independent line, the Witts End Light Railway, proposed and built it's own railway from a nearby market town where a cattle market, dairy and stone mason's works all combined to generate sufficient traffic to interest local shareholders to put up their money. This line opened in 1893. Two more platform faces were constructed, being 3 & 4 to accept the branch services as well as cater for ever more summer traffic. A loading pen for livestock was added on its own dedicated siding about this time and the increased milk traffic began to be handled at a loading dock opposite platform 1 which also catered for the General Post Office's increased parcels needs to the town. A short road between platforms 2 and 3 with an end-loading facility where horse carriages and motor cars had been loaded and offloaded had largely gone out of use by this time and was utilised to stable the branch train over night.

Lastly the Green Soudley railway, a pushy competitor in the region, eventually, after much back and forth in parliament, obtained running powers in 1912 via an end-on connection which transformed the terminal platforms 3 & 4 into through lines with increased complexity of track work at the station throat to provide for all potential train movements. Green Soudley itself, and the docks where the coal is transshipped are represented by the storage loops.

Post war in 1919 the NMR & GSR amalgamated to form the NM&GSR and the WELR was also operated by the larger company in return for 50% of the receipts to the shareholders of that small concern. At the time the line is modelled the WELR locomotives and rolling stock retain their original livery.

[Regularity]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

That station is getting so awkward to operate that it looks realistic!

 

Its like one of those places that grew organically, and by the 1930s was driving everyone so insane that a huge rationalisation project was undertaken to sort it out.

Gives some credible history to the plan.

Possibly out of context for here, but I have always thought that it’s best to think how the layout might have evolved over time, reaching a peak sometime in the 50s or 60s, and then the reverse happens: erosion of facilities, until there is a radical restructuring. Contemporary modellers take note!

 

Of course, sometimes the real railways thought “forget this for a game of soldiers” and simply removed things in their way, and diverted rivers, which is why one of England’s most important Plantagenet castles, home to many Parliaments, two battles, an international treaty and scene of Henry II’s final argument with Thomas Beckett disappeared 150 years ago, and leaves users wondering why the only remaining station in Northampton is called “Castle”. (There was an outcry about the act of wanton vandalism by the LNWR.)

[Regularity]

19 minutes ago, Martin S-C said:

I see the original station circa 1860 as platforms 1 & 2 which would be only about 300ft long

A chance to have different construction methods on the platform, adding more verisimilitude to the story.

(Stamford GNR had three different patterns in its short and narrow length, iirc.)

 

Re the colliery, you could have it raised a little above the main line, with a longer approach road to maybe two exchange sidings (one road for empties, the other for loads, and also running round of empties), with even a short incline thence to the colliery to add just a little bit more height for the sorting sidings for loaded wagons.

Operationally, if the loaded road is full when a train of empties arrives, the latter rake needs to be removed by the colliery engine. This is too small for a full train, particularly with the short gradient, so the incoming train loco banks it up to the colliery. They can then go their separate ways (colliery loco puts empties into yard, train loco waters, couples up and leaves - slowly, because of the gradient and stopping at the bottom to unpin the brakes), and once the loaded train has departed, the colliery loco can return the brakevan to the exchange sidings prior to dropping loaded wagons onto it.

Similarly, if the exchange sidings are empty, the train loco can run round, detach the brakevan from the train and either put it in the loads-out road, or head off as light engine with brakevan.

Very poor sketch attached:

[Harlequin]

The branch line joining the main line before the platforms seems to conflict with the idea of allowing trains to run on the main circuit while other operations are going on. (And would the Board of Trade allow a connection like that?)

 

Based on a true story: A through station on the single track main line might start off as a simple passing loop with a small goods yard. Then the branch line company build their line and engine shed near the station but not connected at first. After some negotiation a bay platform is built and the branch line comes in alongside the main passing loop, with a suitable junction to the main line. Another branch line joins the main line a few miles further down the track and since its services also terminate at the through station, it also gains a bay platform but this time on the other side. The main line company takes over the two branch lines and the original branch engine shed becomes the local shed for the main line. All the time traffic is growing, the importance of the branch lines wax and wane and the station facilities are tweaked and expanded to suit revised operating patterns but the underlying simple original passing loop is still the backbone of the plan.

 

[Martin S-C]

"Another branch line joins the main line a few miles further down the track and since its services also terminate at the through station, it also gains a bay platform but this time on the other side."

I could imagine that this is the case with my plan, the branch junction could be moved a few feet further back to join the main line above the carriage sidings but there isn't room for a proper junction there. I lack room for another platform as well. I do realise now that with the through line being via platforms 3 & 4, terminating branch services are obstructed. I could hold a branch train at the base of the incline until a platform road is clear. I don't plan to use shuttle software, preferring to drive trains myself so there won't be a conflict unless it's of my own making

[Regularity]

How about...

 

Crossover A, although the gradient might need to sharpen slightly (1:70?)?

Also, the three-way on the main is less than ideal, so I have removed it.

B: Extended the goods shed road and siding behind it.

C: Allows access to the goods shed without disturbing wagons at x.

D: Extension to your brake van road (not sure if you really one one) to create an extra storage/shunting siding.

E: In which case, if you must have such a road, there might be space here.

[Nearholmer]

I much prefer it as this topology.

 

 

 

The time delay zone could include a notional junction to “other places”, so some trains could start/end their journey in the FY.

[Martin S-C]

59 minutes ago, Regularity said:

How about...

 

Crossover A, although the gradient might need to sharpen slightly (1:70?)?

Also, the three-way on the main is less than ideal, so I have removed it.

B: Extended the goods shed road and siding behind it.

C: Allows access to the goods shed without disturbing wagons at x.

D: Extension to your brake van road (not sure if you really one one) to create an extra storage/shunting siding.

E: In which case, if you must have such a road, there might be space here.

Yes, a crossover at A was what I was thinking. A 1:72 gradient on the branch is very generous and it can be dialled back to 1:60 without real impact. If that's the case I can jiggle the MPD layout a bit as well by deleting the section where the "UP 1 in 72" notation is. Its cramped there so easing that out would look better.

I'm not convinced about siding D as that blocks road vehicle access to B on the side away from the goods shed.

C is interesting though as regards extending the goods yard sidings I am once again concerned about filling the baseboard with track which I've spent the last few iterations of the plan trying to reduce. The south side of the layout is going to be much more colliery/grime than rural/pretty now so I'd like to keep a good deal of openness where I can to compensate.
 

9 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I much prefer it as this topology.

Interesting, so my single station's history is originally of two independent stations side by side but now run by one company. The "sneak track" would be real and laid after the competitors merged.

[Nearholmer]

Maybe.

 

To me, the key thing is that the main service operates terminus to terminus, like a proper railway. In my mind what you see as one station is actually two, possibly a county apart from one another, and the sneak track doesn’t exist until you need a break from operations and a cup of coffee, then it comes into being for the duration of the coffee break only.

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Martin S-C said:

I'm not convinced about siding D as that blocks road vehicle access to B on the side away from the goods shed.

C is interesting though as regards extending the goods yard sidings I am once again concerned about filling the baseboard with track which I've spent the last few iterations of the plan trying to reduce. The south side of the layout is going to be much more colliery/grime than rural/pretty now so I'd like to keep a good deal of openness where I can to compensate.

Ah. I didn’t realise that you had road access there. Some sorting sidings would be useful, I think. You could reduce the carriage sidings to 2. C means you don’t necessarily need road access here.

C turns the goods shed road into two sidings: I think it is a worthwhile consideration - I took as inspiration Bridgwater SDJR, where a similar toad was added so that they could shuffle wagons more easily in and out of the goods shed: although in a town, it was reasonably rural. Also, use the approaches to Hunstanton as inspiration here - I was aiming for a similar look and feel.

[Martin S-C]

Yes, I have added the crossover, I can see how useful that would be but didn't want to extend siding D. I kept the 3-way point as well. I know they were uncommon on running lines but there are a few examples and this is a low-speed environment at the station throat. Here's where we are right now. I still feel there is scope for improvement but I am not sure what. I am still not 100% happy how the circuit fits into the station but there's no room to go anywhere else. I'm extremely happy that we now have just one big central operating well, that will make life very easy.



Looking at the way the branch comes into platform 4 it might be possible to split that platform into a 4A and a 4B (or a 4 and a 5 depending on which is correct). If a push-pull unit comes off the branch and draws into platform 4 to stop opposite the loco yard office a second train could arrive from the fiddle yard to halt with its loco no further down the platform that the "4" notation. Wait 5 mins for passengers to change trains and then the push-pull departs first, the main line service after.

Edited December 17, 2020 by Martin S-C

[Caley Jim]

2 hours ago, Martin S-C said:

........ I kept the 3-way point as well. I know they were uncommon on running lines but there are a few examples and this is a low-speed environment at the station throat. 

Prototype for everything dept. - as you enter Waverley Station from the west via the north portal of the mound tunnel there is a tandem turnout, just visible in the bottom right of this image from Wikipedia.

 

 

Jim

[Martin S-C]

It looks like the Waverley example is due to lack of space between the hill through which the tunnel had to be bored and the proximity of the station.

A better example is Hunstanton itself, slap bang on the running line.



I just noticed another one there too, between carriage sidings and MPD.

[Regularity]

23 minutes ago, Martin S-C said:

just noticed another one there too, between carriage sidings and MPD.

Along with a single and double slip, and a scissors crossover...

[Martin S-C]

15 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Along with a single and double slip, and a scissors crossover...

Truly a model railway track-builders dream station.



Until

[Regularity]

It was noted at the closure hearing that only one attendee/objector had travelled by train.

Since the meeting was scheduled to occur after the last train to Lynn had departed, that was hardly surprising. And given that a big part of the station capacity was for excursion traffic, not really relevant.

[Annie]

1 hour ago, Martin S-C said:

Truly a model railway track-builders dream station.



Until

Let's just forget about the second picture shall we.  

[Corbs]

Heya Martin, a question about the lifting section. Do you think it may work if the key parts were made from something like aluminium L-section? I know that metal is reactive to heat, but you may not get the swelling that wood experiences.

[Martin S-C]

18 minutes ago, Annie said:

Let's just forget about the second picture shall we.  

Oh, what could have been done with a well-funded and motivated preservation society...

[Martin S-C]

15 minutes ago, Corbs said:

Heya Martin, a question about the lifting section. Do you think it may work if the key parts were made from something like aluminium L-section? I know that metal is reactive to heat, but you may not get the swelling that wood experiences.

I am mulling over the issue and Neil is on the case. The issue last time I think was not sealing the supporting 2x1 timbers. We may well get a laser cut hinged unit made. This one will be a good deal simpler than last time.