Branch Line Terminus in Restricted Space Help Needed

[DCB]

3 hours ago, JST said:

Enter Dr Beeching!

Marples did the damage. Most branches were gone before Beeching.

St Ives is an example of efficiency.  Look at the photos,   Used absolutely to the limit simply by extending the platform to take 10 coaches.  The 2nd 45XX will be at the engine shed waiting to pull the train back so the first can get back to the same end.

A 10 coach train in the platform.  A three coach local set stabled in the loop,  Goods wagons in the dock.   Maybe more wagons in the kick back beyond the loop, almost as stuffed with stock as the average model BLT, except maybe that there was no King around.    This was a feature of the GWR, not many platforms, not enough in many places

As far as I know there was no other loop, signal box or passing place on the branch between St Erth where the branch joined the main line and St Ives.     The branch faced Penzance so engine changing involved putting a loco on the back of the train so through running was not feasible even if a TT had been available.

[Zomboid]

57 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

I completely agree - and wonder what's changed.

Looking now for prices one month ahead:

• Easyjet Bristol to Edinburgh is £32 and takes 1 hr 15 mins
• By rail, Bristol to Edinburgh is £189 and takes 6 hrs

 

Are those the same type of fare?

 

To be honest I don't think rail is really trying to compete with air on that route. A 6 hour journey time is unlikely to attract much custom, even though the time to get from door to door will be closer to 4 hours by air.

[Nearholmer]

The ‘advance’ rail fare is actually c£100, exact amount depending upon train/day, and isn’t available on all trains. £189 is a ‘walk up’ fare ...... goodness knows what that is by plane, because they price ‘walk ups’ according to how desperate you look!

 

The advanced ‘plane fare varies from £20 to £150 depending on day/flight.

 

I can’t be bothered to check, but I would expect the gap to close considerably for a return trip, because the rail fare is often barely more than a single.

Edited February 21, 2020 by Nearholmer

[crackedmember]

Not sure about nowadays, but unit a couple of years ago.

There were only a very small number of the low priced tickets per flight and these needed to be booked months in advance.  Prices crept up until the flight left.   Normal prices tended to end up being more tthan the equivalent British Airways / KLM flights.

[Harlequin]

So, John @JST

 

I will try to re-align the two goods sidings and find a way to give one of them a loading bank and/or end-loading dock. (And try to get rid of the double slip.) That will leave the corner more open for scenery.

 

Should I make any other changes to the station design due to the discussions above?

 

Have I made the bay too long? I was thinking about Minehead and Kingswear when I drew it.

 

It seems reasonable to imagine that the station was only a few miles away from the mainline junction where there was a shed with a turntable - not least because that's exactly what you've got in your layout! Thus, there's no need for a turntable at this station and tender locos travel up and down the branch light engine, tender first as necessary. OK?

What do you want to do about the local engine shed? If the large shed at the junction is near enough for the light engine moves described above then the original engine shed (there almost certainly was one) would probably have been taken out of use in the 20's. So do you want to retain the local shed under Rule 1, justify it some other way or say that it has indeed been taken out of use but the building remains and the tracks are still used as stabling spurs in the busy summer months? Perhaps even get rid of it completely?

 

Even if there was no local engine shed (in use) there would have been a water tank and one or more water columns and I think it's possible there might still have been a coaling stage - but I'm not sure.

 

Final question: Do you have a name for this station?

 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Harlequin

[clachnaharry]

My choice would be St Ivel, and replace the engine shed with a creamery.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 21, 2020 by clachnaharry

[JST]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

So, John @JST

 

I will try to re-align the two goods sidings and find a way to give one of them a loading bank and/or end-loading dock. (And try to get rid of the double slip.) That will leave the corner more open for scenery.

 

Should I make any other changes to the station design due to the discussions above?

 

Have I made the bay too long? I was thinking about Minehead and Kingswear when I drew it.

 

It seems reasonable to imagine that the station was only a few miles away from the mainline junction where there was a shed with a turntable - not least because that's exactly what you've got in your layout! Thus, there's no need for a turntable at this station and tender locos travel up and down the branch light engine, tender first as necessary. OK?

What do you want to do about the local engine shed? If the large shed at the junction is near enough for the light engine moves described above then the original engine shed (there almost certainly was one) would probably have been taken out of use in the 20's. So do you want to retain the local shed under Rule 1, justify it some other way or say that it has indeed been taken out of use but the building remains and the tracks are still used as stabling spurs in the busy summer months? Perhaps even get rid of it completely?

 

Even if there was no local engine shed (in use) there would have been a water tank and one or more water columns and I think it's possible there might still have been a coaling stage - but I'm not sure.

 

Final question: Do you have a name for this station?

 

Hi Phil,

The answer to your questions are:-

1 I see no changes needed - all looks OK  to me.

2 I am OK with no turntable. I think it may overpower the whole thing if it was included.

3 I have decided to keep the shed. I know I told Zomboid I would ditch it but since then my obsession with loco sheds has taken over! Yes, I already have a large s loco shed but maybe I ought to own up at this point to be in the process of putting a small diesel depot together at the opposite end of the station to the steam shed (haven't done the scenic back boards or details yet).

 

 

4 The Station name will be Fernhead. There are reasons behind this. Firstly I originally planned the station to be based loosely on Minehead as I went there often on the train as a lad and a good pal of mine is now a Station Master on the WSR. Secondly ( a very recent decision) I had a tragic day yesterday when I lost my much loved cat called Fern to illness. She spent hours with me in the loft as I built the layout and never once caused a crash or tried to "bat" the trains. In fact she used to love watching them so I built her a viewing perch. RIP Fern.

 

 

 

 

[JST]

Oops... sorry I forgot the question about the bay platform. In  one way it is longer than it needs to be but this may be fine because I will be running ABS shuttle train in the bay and whereas sometimes it will be a pannier and an auto coach I also need space to slow down and brake a 3 car DMU. In addition to this I rather like the look of trains being in a platform which is too long for them..... a bit like real life!

 

Cheers

 

John

Edited February 21, 2020 by JST

[Harlequin]

Thanks John.

 

I'm really sorry to hear about Fern. It sounds like she was a great companion.

 

Fernhead it is.

 

[Pacific231G]

2 hours ago, JST said:

Oops... sorry I forgot the question about the bay platform. In  one way it is longer than it needs to be but this may be fine because I will be running ABS shuttle train in the bay and whereas sometimes it will be a pannier and an auto coach I also need space to slow down and brake a 3 car DMU. In addition to this I rather like the look of trains being in a platform which is too long for them..... a bit like real life!

 

Cheers

 

John

Hello  John

I'm really sorry to hear about your loss of Fern.

I've been delving a bit more into the St. Ives branch - which turns out to have been far  more interesting than I'd ever thought as I'd always rather dismissed it as a prototype.

The bay was used for passenger trains but probably only on Summer Saturdays. I found this quote on the Cornwall Railways Society pages

"We were staying above the harbour and I arrived back in time to watch the 0920 climbing out of the station towards Carbis Bay, a splendid sight! Later we returned to the station for our connection to St. Erth for the Wolverhampton train, to our surprise we were directed to our connecting train in the bay, another first for me. Was this a regular Summer Saturday working, does anyone know? " which attracted the response "Yes it was usual to run passenger trains not only out of but also into the Bay Platform on Summer Saturdays – the platform edge wasn’t painted white just for appearances." 

 

That doesn't quite answer how the bay got away with being so little signalled with just a shunting disk and no starter and how common was it for one starter signal to apply to two tracks- the main platform and the loop. Would the trap points on the bay have had to be clipped when it was used for passenger trains? 

I was amused by the apparent reason why there are plenty of photos of the St. Ives section of the down Cornish Riviera Express  arriving in St. Ives but so few of the morning departure that many have assumed that the CRE only ran as a through train to St. Ives in the down direction. It seems that the guest houses in St. Ives all served breakfast on the dot of 9AM and if you weren't  there then you didn't get any; the CRE departed at 09.20 (About ten years ago I actually stayed in a guest house like that in Margate when all the proper hotels were full. It was cheap but nasty and has since closed!) 

4 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

As far as I know there was no other loop, signal box or passing place on the branch between St Erth where the branch joined the main line and St Ives.     The branch faced Penzance so engine changing involved putting a loco on the back of the train so through running was not feasible even if a TT had been available.

Hello David

Through running simply meant that passengers didn't have to change trains at St. Erth but it was local tank engines that took them to and from St. Ives.

I checked the Signal Record Society- there is a thumbnail of the SB diagram for St. Ives-  and apparently there originally was a box at Lelant that controlled  a level crossing and the branch to the quay there. There was no passing loop there and single line section seems to have always been St.Erth -St.Ives.

When the line first opened it was staff only so single engine in steam, then from 1884 train staff and ticket, then  ten years later electric staff, (which was probably when Lelant SB lost its signals and became a ground frame) It was electric token from 1956, but in 1963 - when the line closed to goods- It went back to single engine in steam train staff only and St. Ives SB reverted to a ground frame. 

 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Flying Pig]

@Harlequin, I would suggest a goods yard for Fernhead as below, which is pretty close to St Ives.  I think in this instance simple traps, even if mocked up and non-working, would look more fitting than the slip and trap siding (which isn't long enough to work as a headshunt anyway). If John does want to keep the trap siding, it should be trimmed a bit.

 

I'd also suggest putting an end-loading dock on the short siding next to the carriage road at the far right of the layout.  Shame about the loco shed - a creamery would have been more fun operationally (and more feline-orientated).

 

[Nearholmer]

You don't usually get zonal creamery/dairy premises right at the seaside. They are located so as to have a nice big catchment area, and putting half the catchment in the sea is no good, because its so hard to milk dolphins (members will now cite ten examples of major creameries inches from the beach).

[DCB]

Comment removed.    I now see  the OP wants a station based on Minehead.   Very different to St Ives not least because it was at the end of double track from Dunster.      Single Island platform with run round loops both sides, one side about 8 coaches the other 11?  Turntable though on a line mainly the preserve of 51XX prairies. Quite a big beast.

 

 

Edited February 22, 2020 by DavidCBroad

[Harlequin]

6 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

@Harlequin, I would suggest a goods yard for Fernhead as below, which is pretty close to St Ives.  I think in this instance simple traps, even if mocked up and non-working, would look more fitting than the slip and trap siding (which isn't long enough to work as a headshunt anyway). If John does want to keep the trap siding, it should be trimmed a bit.

 

I'd also suggest putting an end-loading dock on the short siding next to the carriage road at the far right of the layout.  Shame about the loco shed - a creamery would have been more fun operationally (and more feline-orientated).

 

Yes I came to the same conclusion. The double slip was a problem when trying to lay out anything like St Ives but it was basically there to avoid the catch points. Replacing the trapping spur and thus the DS with catch points makes the sidings work much better.

I'm going to try to arrange the goods shed to have its loading doors opening into the yard (like St Ives) so that outside the track is purely non-railway scenery.

 

Edited February 22, 2020 by Harlequin

[JST]

Traps are no problem and I like this idea. I would add that I have no issue with double slips (insulfrog) in sidings, just worries about good running on a main line - probably unsupported paranoia!

 

If the loading bank idea works out I wonder if I might be able to hijack a small section for a cattle pen - but that may be a bridge too far. A bit more information if it helps is that I have a Metcalfe goods shed and single road engine shed which I hope to use in this bit of the layout.

 

Again, thanks for all the interest and help you kind people have proffered.

John

[Harlequin]

Hi John,

 

Try this for size:

 

• The St Ives style goods yard and loading dock works nicely with the goods shed opening into the yard.
• The catch points in the two goods sidings could be done in various ways, the simplest being to just imagine them...! The one in the long siding needs to be curved so we can't just use the Peco catch point as supplied - it throws the siding out of whack too far.
• The entry point is 494mm from the front edge with 109mm of straight before the curve starts.
• I've redone the Bay curve so that it's smoother and the platform is wider.
• The engine shed has been moved and angled a bit.
• The carriage siding is slightly shorter and realigned so that point motors are well away from baseboard supports.
• I've suggested some scenery based on your backscene just to get a feel for it but obviously it's entirely up to you. Need to think about how the yard surface disappears into the backscene but I think it's doable with things like hedges, fences and hoardings.

Cattle pens? Hmmm...

Edited February 22, 2020 by Harlequin
Schematic was wrong

[Flying Pig]

21 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

with the goods shed opening into the yard

 

Per the prototype -  my mistake! It's obvious where the inspiration for CJF's hilariously tiny goods yards came from.

 

Overall looking very good, though the platform still looks a bit skinny.  Are you sure it will be ok once clearances are taken into account?

[Zomboid]

I think the platform looks skinny because it's so long. 3-4 coaches at most BLTs is generous by model standards.

[JST]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Hi John,

 

Try this for size:

 

• The St Ives style goods yard and loading dock works nicely with the goods shed opening into the yard.
• The catch points in the two goods sidings could be done in various ways, the simplest being to just imagine them...! The one in the long siding needs to be curved so we can't just use the Peco catch point as supplied - it throws the siding out of whack too far.
• The entry point is 494mm from the front edge with 109mm of straight before the curve starts.
• I've redone the Bay curve so that it's smoother and the platform is wider.
• The engine shed has been moved and angled a bit.
• The carriage siding is slightly shorter and realigned so that point motors are well away from baseboard supports.
• I've suggested some scenery based on your backscene just to get a feel for it but obviously it's entirely up to you. Need to think about how the yard surface disappears into the backscene but I think it's doable with things like hedges, fences and hoardings.

Cattle pens? Hmmm...

Phil,

Thanks for this and it all looks brilliant.

 

As it is built I might make a few small changes to accommodate some scenic ideas I have. This may involve moving the ES back to where you had it before because I hope to have a small road/track emerging from the hill the tunnel is in which would pass behind the ES and then cross the branch line with a small level crossing just before the first set of points. After that it would go behind the SC and up to the GS by way of an access road. The green bank I have already put in has a footpath on it for walkers etc.and goes all the way to the SB. There will still be room for the tress, hedges, fences etc. I will forget the cattle pen!

 

I have a couple of questions:-

1 How big should I make the new fillet? It looks to be about 50cm by 80cm

2 I will lay the track and then make the platform to fit but how wide do you think it will be at it's widest and it's most narrow point?

3 Can I assume that the list of points requirements is now the same minus the double slip?

4 Can you tell what the radii of the platform and bay tracks are?

 

Many thanks

 

John

[Harlequin]

Hi John,

 

The fillet is 860 * 490.

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

On 21/02/2020 at 15:55, Nearholmer said:

I know nuffink when it comes to the GWR, but I believe that on the Seaton branch a pair of engines went down to the terminus to haul the Saturday 'big train(s)' out. The stock may actually have been stabled at the junction, so possibly an entire ECS train, rather than light engines. Given that the train(s) had to reverse at the junction in order to go to Waterloo, I think they might have been tank engines, with the big tender engine backing on at the junction. Reverse process in the late afternoon with the Down train(s).

 

Must have cost a fortune in under-utilised carriages, engine time, fuel and crews!

I suspect that using two engines on the Seaton branch on Summer Saturdays worked in the same way as it did on other branches in that next of the woods and the branch engines were changed over on a Saturday allowing them to overlap for that day. 

[The Stationmaster]

23 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

Marples did the damage. Most branches were gone before Beeching.

St Ives is an example of efficiency.  Look at the photos,   Used absolutely to the limit simply by extending the platform to take 10 coaches.  The 2nd 45XX will be at the engine shed waiting to pull the train back so the first can get back to the same end.

A 10 coach train in the platform.  A three coach local set stabled in the loop,  Goods wagons in the dock.   Maybe more wagons in the kick back beyond the loop, almost as stuffed with stock as the average model BLT, except maybe that there was no King around.    This was a feature of the GWR, not many platforms, not enough in many places

As far as I know there was no other loop, signal box or passing place on the branch between St Erth where the branch joined the main line and St Ives.     The branch faced Penzance so engine changing involved putting a loco on the back of the train so through running was not feasible even if a TT had been available.

There was a signalbox at Lelant from the opening of the St Ives branch in 1877, it was reduced to a ground frame in 1894.  It was never a crossing place.

[Harlequin]

6 hours ago, JST said:

Phil,

Thanks for this and it all looks brilliant.

 

As it is built I might make a few small changes to accommodate some scenic ideas I have. This may involve moving the ES back to where you had it before because I hope to have a small road/track emerging from the hill the tunnel is in which would pass behind the ES and then cross the branch line with a small level crossing just before the first set of points. After that it would go behind the SC and up to the GS by way of an access road. The green bank I have already put in has a footpath on it for walkers etc.and goes all the way to the SB. There will still be room for the tress, hedges, fences etc. I will forget the cattle pen!

I'm not sure there's room for a road behind the tracks and the SC. It would arrive at the "wrong" side of the goods shed, as I've drawn it but I'll leave you to work out the details.

 

6 hours ago, JST said:

 

I have a couple of questions:-

1 How big should I make the new fillet? It looks to be about 50cm by 80cm

860 * 490mm. I gave you a quick answer above in case you were itching to cut some timber!

 

6 hours ago, JST said:

2 I will lay the track and then make the platform to fit but how wide do you think it will be at it's widest and it's most narrow point?

This also answers @Flying Pig's question: The platform is 55mm wide at the water column, grows to ~75mm just before it straightens out and finally is ~87mm wide at the bay buffers. The platform edge is 20mm away from the track centres and because the curvature is so great I think clearances will be fine. Even if a few mils need to be shaved, off there's some leeway before we hit the regulation minimum 48mm (12 scale feet).

 

6 hours ago, JST said:

3 Can I assume that the list of points requirements is now the same minus the double slip?

1 Long right

2 Medium right

3 Medium left

2 Curved right

1 Curved left

Optionally: 2 Right hand Catch/Trap points (1 can be inserted easily, the other not so easily but maybe it could be modified in some way to fit in the curve of the long siding?)

 

6 hours ago, JST said:

4 Can you tell what the radii of the platform and bay tracks are?

Sorry, no - they aren't constant radius curves!

 

To set them out you can either print off the PDF that I will send you at real size or measure distances perpendicular to the baseboard edge at intervals and plot the curves that way. I can tell you how to print tiles in Acrobat or create a set of measurements for you. Let me know.

 

[mdvle]

15 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

To set them out you can either print off the PDF that I will send you at real size or measure distances perpendicular to the baseboard edge at intervals and plot the curves that way. I can tell you how to print tiles in Acrobat or create a set of measurements for you. Let me know.

 

 

Easiest way may be to draw the grid on the baseboard, and then use the respective grids to mark where the track crosses each grid line.

[JST]

Hi Phil,

 

I am making the new fillet this morning and when I removed the old one I remembered a bit of information I had forgotten and hence not told you. Basically my layout is in a loft area of a 150 year old French farmhouse which is great except that nothing is plum, straight or level including the corners of the 3 ft thick stone walls.  When I built the BLT baseboards I opted to keep them consistent widths which means, given the jaunty angles of the wall corner, the fillet is not a 90 degree triangle. If you look at the photo you might be able to make out that the angle is more obtuse than 90 degrees which hopefully will not affect things too much. Over the 860 side length of the fillet I think it amounts to about 15mm. I hope this just means that the curves into the station will be a slightly bigger radius - unless you tell me otherwise!

 

Also, and I don't think this affects anything, I have made a section of the baseboard so it can be taken out without much hassle. This is because the 4 main lines go under it and should the manure contact the rotating cooling device and I needed to relay track for some reason, I can get to it with out disturbing much. The bit affected has the ES and siding on it. I will lay the track as normal but should the need arise I could cut the track at the join and refit it with connectors. For this reason the tunnel entrance/hill will be a free standing lift out construction (actually I have already made it). The lift out section of baseboard is the triangular bit in this photo:-

 

I don't think there is any other info I have failed to impart so I am off down the workshop now to make the new fillet.

Cheers

 

John