Station Approach - Thoughts on Some Options

[scottystitch]

With the help of @TheSignalEngineer, I've been working on refining the approach pointwork for my layout station.

 

The first illustration is where we are just now, but I've been trying to find a more elegant solution whilst still being plausible.

 

Perhaps the collective could cast their eyes over the three trackplans and suggest which they prefer from a prototypical sense? It really would be greatly appreciated.

 

Trackwork is Code 40 N Gauge.

 

The station is situated at Perth, Scotland.

 

Time period is 1962-64 and the area has just recently been changed over to colour light signaling controlled from a powerbox.

 

Platform 1 and 3 are Down (right to left).

Platform 2 & 4 are Up (left to right) but platform 2 will be signalled for bi-directional use in the unlikely event it is required.

Platforms 5, 6 and 7 are bay platforms.

The two sidings at the top are motorail  sidings.

 

Platforms 5 and 6 are served by DMUs.

 

In all cases I think I have access to 1, 2, 5, 6, and 3 from the Down Main.

and access from 1, 2, 5, 6, 3, 4, 7 to the Up Main.

 

Platforms 4 and 7 are deliberately not accessible directly from Down Main. 

 

Best

 

Scott.

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2019 by scottystitch
Catching some typos

[bigP]

--

 

 

Edited February 1, 2021 by bigP
Deleted

[scottystitch]

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

I thought layouts 2 & 3 looked more elegant, and flowing, but suspected the platforms 5 & 6 directly off the mains would be an issue.

 

How would you suggest incorporating a headshunt for the motorail?

 

Resemblance to Stirling is due to it being a starting point for the plan. I've fictionally placed the station in Perth for particular reasons. I had considered modelling but Stirling but decided against it.

 

Thanks again

Best

 

Scott

[scottystitch]

3 hours ago, bigP said:

Hi,

One thing I would definitely add would be a headshunt for the motorail sidings.  

 

Regards,

Paul

 

 

 

Something like this perhaps?

 

Best

 

Scott

[DCB]

Looks more 1980s than 1960s. Perth had 6 running lines between the tunnels and the platforms.  Trains changed engines, at Perth.  Steam with A4s etc continued into 1965 though the highland  was dieselised in 62 ish steam came back on the Aberdeen expresses when the Type 2's couldn't keep time. .

The real Perth had up and down Dundee platforms, mainly for locals on the West, then the Aberdeen lines were paired (Inverness trains diverged a few miles north at Stanley Junction)  and the layout was very very weird, still was when I visited a couple of years ago.    

[scottystitch]

Being from Perth I'm very familiar with Perth General's layout, but this project supposes that the joint station, for various reasons, wasn't built as is and instead there were two main stations along with Prince Street and Muirton Ticket Platform. The site of Perth Caledonian is immediately on the exit from Moncrieffe Tunnel (sometimes referred to as Hilton Tunnel) and adjacent the site of the real Perth ex-LMS shed.

 

The project also supposes that Moncrieffe Tunnel wasn't the only railway access to the city from the South.

 

Best

 

Scott

[kevinlms]

15 minutes ago, scottystitch said:

 

Something like this perhaps?

 

Best

 

Scott

How many trains a day use the Motorail platforms? Not many I suspect. If that is all the two tracks are used for, perhaps a headshunt for them isn't required?

Once the Motorail arrives, does it get shunted away, or does the stock stay until the evening departure?

[scottystitch]

7 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

How many trains a day use the Motorail platforms? Not many I suspect. If that is all the two tracks are used for, perhaps a headshunt for them isn't required?

Once the Motorail arrives, does it get shunted away, or does the stock stay until the evening departure?

One service per day, Holloway to Perth and return. 6 or 7 TCVs or Carflats.  The stock comes off the train and shunted into the Motorail sidings for unloading and stays there until loading for the return service after which it gets shunted back into the platform for coupling up to the sleeping cars.

 

Best

 

Scott

Edited December 1, 2019 by scottystitch

[kevinlms]

3 minutes ago, scottystitch said:

One service per day, Holloway to Perth and return. 6 or 7 TCVs or Carflats.  The stock comes off the train and shunted into the Motorail sidings for unloading and stays there until loading for the return service after which it gets shunted back into the platform for coupling up to the sleeping cars.

 

Best

 

Scott

I suspect you don't NEED a headshunt then, but you might want one for the parcels road. It again depends on what goes on & how frequently it is used.

[royaloak]

5 hours ago, bigP said:

Hi,

 

Plans 2 & 3 I’d say we’re a definite no-no, what with main line running direct to the bay but the through platforms coming off the mains.

 

 'straight on' doesnt have to be the main route especially at low speed approaches.

[jamespetts]

This is a nice looking layout! It is delightful how much that one can fit in with N gauge. This in code 40 should be quite the delight. Are you using British Finescale track? It will be splendid to see this when it is in progress/built.

 

As to the plans, I agree that the first is better than the second or third. It does not make sense for the main line to have what would be in effect a very sharp slalom in the approaches to the station, which would create an unnecessarily harsh speed restriction: the main lines would be as straight as possible and everything else would be laid to match.

 

Presumably you intend the Motorail bay to be inaccessible from the up direction (down main) as well as platforms 4 and 7? The only way of using it would be for a train arriving from the up direction to reverse in platform 3 or 2 onto the up main. A train arriving from the down direction would also have to reverse on the up main, even with the headshunt, which is not accessible from the up relief/slow (or main).

 

I do not know enough about Motorail operations to know whether this is correct, however.

 

I also wonder whether, pre-rationalisation, the exits from platforms 5 and 6 would have been a double junction rather than a single lead - it may be this single lead junction that lead one of the posters above to suggest that this looked a bit 1980s (although the double slip is very un-1980s, as is the diamond crossing on the double junction on the main lines, which is in keeping with the period). Are you intentionally missing a track for the platform face opposite platform 7 on the northern side (i.e. between platform 7 and the lower motorail bay), or is it just an artefact of the drawing that it appears this way?

 

One final thing - how would the bays be operating? Presumably, in the early 1960s, much of this would be steam hauled, so either a locomotive would have to release the stock in the bays and then the locomotive, or there would be kickback working. The station pilot (or kickback locomotive) would have to be stored somewhere, and something would have to be done with the locomotives hauling the stock into the bays. Unless there had been a major redesign of the track layout very recently at this station (which is possible - you will have to research this), even if by this period, the bays were mainly used by DMUs, the track facilities (including somewhere for locomotives to go) for steam traction using these bays would have remained. It is possible that some of it may have become derelict (perhaps the station had lost its station pilot - I am not sure whether this happened this early) and the pilot/kickback siding(s) might have been lifted or have become overgrown; but you might want to represent this in some way.

Edited December 4, 2019 by jamespetts

[Titanius Anglesmith]

10 hours ago, jamespetts said:

 

One final thing - how would the bays be operating? Presumably, in the early 1960s, much of this would be steam hauled, so either a locomotive would have to release the stock in the bays and then the locomotive, or there would be kickback working. The station pilot (or kickback locomotive) would have to be stored somewhere, and something would have to be done with the locomotives hauling the stock into the bays. Unless there had been a major redesign of the track layout very recently at this station (which is possible - you will have to research this), even if by this period, the bays were mainly used by DMUs, the track facilities (including somewhere for locomotives to go) for steam traction using these bays would have remained. It is possible that some of it may have become derelict (perhaps the station had lost its station pilot - I am not sure whether this happened this early) and the pilot/kickback siding(s) might have been lifted or have become overgrown; but you might want to represent this in some way.

 

At Wickford it was usual for an up-branch train to run direct into the up bay platform, trapping the loco. Once passengers had alighted the train would back out onto the running line, run around its train, then shunt back into the down bay ready for its return trip down the branch. A lot of shunting, but quite convenient for passengers. 

 

Even more common was to terminate in the main platform, then run around and shunt into the bay. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Wareham is another example of the two-bay working for the convenience of passengers.

 

The modern-day "customers" rarely get such convenience.

[scottystitch]

12 hours ago, jamespetts said:

This is a nice looking layout! It is delightful how much that one can fit in with N gauge. This in code 40 should be quite the delight. Are you using British Finescale track? It will be splendid to see this when it is in progress/built.

 

Thanks, very kind.  It is intended to be British Finescale, but I need to see how I get on building turnout kits with my shaking hands..... The non-scenic portions and storage yards will be code 55 

 

Quote

 

As to the plans, I agree that the first is better than the second or third. It does not make sense for the main line to have what would be in effect a very sharp slalom in the approaches to the station, which would create an unnecessarily harsh speed restriction: the main lines would be as straight as possible and everything else would be laid to match.

 

Presumably you intend the Motorail bay to be inaccessible from the up direction (down main) as well as platforms 4 and 7? The only way of using it would be for a train arriving from the up direction to reverse in platform 3 or 2 onto the up main. A train arriving from the down direction would also have to reverse on the up main, even with the headshunt, which is not accessible from the up relief/slow (or main).

 

I do not know enough about Motorail operations to know whether this is correct, however.

 

Yes that is intentional. Perth Motorail operated like that and Stirling was the same (to a point).  I've reworked the plan again and removed the headshunt. I don't think it brings any value and I don't think it's justified for one two Motorail shunts a day and a parcels shunt a day. 

 

Quote

 

I also wonder whether, pre-rationalisation, the exits from platforms 5 and 6 would have been a double junction rather than a single lead - it may be this single lead junction that lead one of the posters above to suggest that this looked a bit 1980s (although the double slip is very un-1980s, as is the diamond crossing on the double junction on the main lines, which is in keeping with the period). Are you intentionally missing a track for the platform face opposite platform 7 on the northern side (i.e. between platform 7 and the lower motorail bay), or is it just an artefact of the drawing that it appears this way?

 

I've reworked the plan to remove the single lead, and reverted to a double junction for platforms 5 and 6. It looks better balanced and I think feels better too.  There is no missing track adjacent the Platform 7 track. I am considering having an intentional gap between the Platform 7 track and the Motorail sidings hence the 'gap'.

 

Quote

 

One final thing - how would the bays be operating? Presumably, in the early 1960s, much of this would be steam hauled, so either a locomotive would have to release the stock in the bays and then the locomotive, or there would be kickback working. The station pilot (or kickback locomotive) would have to be stored somewhere, and something would have to be done with the locomotives hauling the stock into the bays. Unless there had been a major redesign of the track layout very recently at this station (which is possible - you will have to research this), even if by this period, the bays were mainly used by DMUs, the track facilities (including somewhere for locomotives to go) for steam traction using these bays would have remained. It is possible that some of it may have become derelict (perhaps the station had lost its station pilot - I am not sure whether this happened this early) and the pilot/kickback siding(s) might have been lifted or have become overgrown; but you might want to represent this in some way.

 

The services at platform 5 and 6 will all be DMU worked, but I have imagined that previous loco hauled services would have terminated either in platform 5 and then shunted to platform 6 for loco release, or terminated in one of the through platforms and shunted to a bay.   The shunt would have been performed by the locomotive rostered to work the return, and supplied directly from the shed which is just beyond the road bridge out of scene, or waiting patiently in the bay for the arrival.

 

The trackwork has been modified in line with the recent colour light signalling installation.

 

I don't think there is space to include a genuine pilot stub in any case without further cluttering the space, and I question if one would have been required for what is predominantly a through station.

 

In my fictional world, Perth Caledonian has a similar relationship with an off scene, and equally fictional, Perth Central as Haymarket does with Waverley in Edinburgh, albeit Perth Central is no Waverley and Haymarket has/had no Motorail (although at one point it did have a couple of bay platforms and has regained one recently).

 

Edited December 4, 2019 by scottystitch

[jamespetts]

That does make sense. This does look like an older than 1980s layout now that the single lead has been removed. Splendid!

[bigP]

--

Edited February 1, 2021 by bigP
Deleted

[scottystitch]

1 hour ago, bigP said:

 

 

 

Hi Scott,

 

Not quite what I meant no, sorry. 

The only track software I have is Templot, so I've done a hand sketch and scanned it. 

 

A couple of plans from me, but before I do some preamble....

 

I'm not familiar with the geography or history of lines through Perth and Stirling (you mentioned your original plan has inspiration from the Stirling layout). 

You made reference to Perth being built as a 'joint' station, but in your model you are supposing that the railway companies built their own stations. 

This I think gives rise to question what is the purpose of splitting the up and down lines in the way you are? 

Do the lines split to the North of the station (like in real Perth and Stirling)?  If not, why not have the bottom two as Down Lines, and top two as Up Lines?

 

So, my two sketches....  Hope you don't mind the input.

 

Stirth 1

 

 

Through lines are paired by direction.  Down P1 (bottom) has a faster run in than P2.

P7 / Parcels is directly accessible from the Down Main.

Up trains through P3 or P4 can get the Up without blocking down trains into the bays.

Down Sleeper/Motorail trains would run Down into P3 or P4, from where the Pilot engine would drop on the back and draw the Moto stock into the neck and then shunt into the Moto Sidings.  Up Motos, the Pilot would shunt the stock into either P3 or P4 ready for the sleeper stock to be dropped on top of it.

There is also a small cripple siding for the inevitable crippled stock.

Through trains can be routed into P2 (Up) and P3 (Down) to make easy connections for passengers.

 

 

Stirth 2

 

As per your original, lines split with two pairs of Up/Down through platforms.

No direct access to P7/Parcels line for inbound stock.

Down Trains to the bay don't block Up trains from P4, but do block Up from P2.

Down Moto Sleeper would have to go into P3 for the Pilot to drop on the back and then shunt Moto stock into the neck, then Moto sidings.  Up Motos would need to be shunted into P4 in order for the Up train to get the Up road.

Cripple Siding still present.

 

Regardless of what you think of my sketches, I think you need to take a moment to think about the history of your 'just supposing' station. 

Are the lines splitting (offscene)?  Where is the likely goods yard, engine shed, carriage sidings (offscene)?  Where are the through trains going to and are they splitting, dropping stock or changing engines here?

From that, maybe think what track layout would have been needed for your required moves and take it from there.  Even in the 60s you would still be effectively modelling the remnants of what was needed in a bygone age.

 

Cheers,

Paul

 

Hi Paul,

 

Your first sketch looks good and much better than my efforts. Thanks for that. I will try and draw that up in Anyrail tomorrow.

 

The purpose for the down up down up in respect of platforms 1 2 3 4, was purely aesthetic, as I wanted to watch Down trains snaking across the crossings, but your reasoning makes sense.

 

The tracks (Left) North of the station all continue on to Perth Central without diverging.

 

A goodly sized engine shed is beyond the bridge on the left hand side (North), serving this station and Perth Central. 

 

Perth Marshalling yard (new hump yard) is further north, beyond Perth Central.

 

Most trains are through without splitting, dropping, etc., but one train a day splits on it's way South and combines on the return North (a section of the West Coast Postal) and are heading to Aberdeen/Glasgow and Dundee/Glasgow (by different routes North of Perth Central) and Perth Central/London (to terminate). Bay trains are from/to Edinburgh.

 

One London train terminates/starts here, the motorail service.

 

Best

 

Scott

 

Some Glasgow/Aberdeen trains will change engine here., but no more than two per day, plus random failures.

[bigP]

--

Edited February 1, 2021 by bigP
Deleted

[scottystitch]

Thank you Paul for continuing to consider this.

 

Based on your option 3, I think I've managed to work that into Anyrail and the Finetrax geometry. I've also added a locomotive spur:

 

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2019 by scottystitch

[bigP]

--

Edited February 1, 2021 by bigP
Deleted

[scottystitch]

46 minutes ago, bigP said:

 

 

 

Or perhaps add a 'spur' off the neck.  That way it is naturally 'locked in' by the 'neck area' point and signalling.

 

 

 

Paul

 

I had considered that, but it would mean a convoluted route to platforms 1 and 2. I'll do as you suggest and put a trap/turnout in to protect the main line.

 

Best

Scott

[Flying Pig]

May I suggest a slight rearrangement of the lines near the double slip, which I think will give a neater appearance, closer to what bigP sketched? I've used plain left and right points as indicated by L or R which means the lines marked with a double crosshatch should end up parallel, assuming all your pointwork has the same angles. 

 

I've also suggested putting the loco spur on the down side where it has a trailing connection and access to all platforms. As currently drawn it's the wrong side of the trailing crossover for a direct run into P1 (not sure whether that matters in your operational scheme).  Alternatively you could just move it to the right of the crossover, or even move the crossover, as suggested.

 

 

[luckymucklebackit]

Paul - an interesting project in an era that I am familiar with.  One memory I have of Perth around the time that you are modelling was that it was a major parcels hub and there was at least one 08 continually shunting parcels vans around, all four bay platforms could have vans in them as well as "behind the wall", so you might want to allow for more space to shunt vans (a fun practise I think)

 

Jim

[Flying Pig]

41 minutes ago, luckymucklebackit said:

Paul - an interesting project in an era that I am familiar with.  One memory I have of Perth around the time that you are modelling was that it was a major parcels hub and there was at least one 08 continually shunting parcels vans around, all four bay platforms could have vans in them as well as "behind the wall", so you might want to allow for more space to shunt vans (a fun practise I think)

 

Jim

 

I've been trying to resist the temptation to suggest more sidings for shunting parcels stock as it just seemed greedy, but if there's prototypical justification then I'm not going to bother any more.  The variety of parcels vehicles still in service during scottystitch's stated era is very appealing though sadly I think he's just a year or two early to be packing Platform 7 with BRUTEs.

[scottystitch]

On 10/12/2019 at 14:12, luckymucklebackit said:

Paul - an interesting project in an era that I am familiar with.  One memory I have of Perth around the time that you are modelling was that it was a major parcels hub and there was at least one 08 continually shunting parcels vans around, all four bay platforms could have vans in them as well as "behind the wall", so you might want to allow for more space to shunt vans (a fun practise I think)

 

Jim

 

On 10/12/2019 at 15:01, Flying Pig said:

 

I've been trying to resist the temptation to suggest more sidings for shunting parcels stock as it just seemed greedy, but if there's prototypical justification then I'm not going to bother any more.  The variety of parcels vehicles still in service during scottystitch's stated era is very appealing though sadly I think he's just a year or two early to be packing Platform 7 with BRUTEs.

 

It's an interesting idea, I'm just not sure I can fit it in, without it looking like I've tried to fit it in...........