Friar's Gate - 50s-60s Berkshire Southern-Western region joint terminus

[Rising Standards]

Good afternoon folks,

 

After years of accumulating stock with a primarily BR Southern and Western region bias, my thoughts have turned to building that first layout I’d always expected to have by now when I was younger. I’ve done some trackwork renewal on a club layout and was effectively in charge of all matters electrical in that time, so I’m not frightened of the first steps of layout construction, but I am very aware that my first attempt shouldn’t be too ambitious and needs to be something I’ll actually finish.

 

Locations for a layout in the house I currently live in are slightly restrictive in some ways, though that does at least help to keep my ambitions in check:

 

1. In a corner of a room with approximately 9’ of useable length along the two walls. Width ideally needs to be minimised away from the curve in the middle – no more than 2’ to keep the centre of the room available for other purposes (occasional dining, working from home). Limiting factors are a set of French windows on the left wall when viewed from the centre of the room (so that end of the layout in particular needs to come apart easily for access if desired), and a radiator on the right wall which starts fairly close to the corner. Advantages of this would be that the space is currently fairly empty so can be made available quite easily, and the resulting L-shaped layout is not completely impractical for an exhibition manager to find space for if I decide to take it out somewhere.
2. In a spare room with a main portion measuring 7’ 6” x 8’. As shown below, the door opens into the room at the left end of one of the longer walls, limiting the length of board from the door to the end of the wall to 4’ 9”. The house’s hot water tank and associated plumbing occupies the space to the left of the door, so the area in front of this space (shown in grey) is as well left unoccupied, or would at least need anything around the door and tank to be easily dismountable. There is however a set of shelves built into a former chimney breast in the back left corner when viewed from the door. If this space could be repurposed it might offer a further 2’ x 2’ for an extended fiddle yard along the back wall. The advantages of this room would be that the railway would be out of the way of the rest of the house, and there may be potential for some form of continuous run if the space by the door can be used, even if only one loop to run in new locos (the door already has a lock that would prevent entry if a lifting section was being operated). The key disadvantages are that this room would need to be emptied (the contents not being mine to dispose of), and that removal of the shelving from the former chimney breast would need to be approved too (the house not being mine to mess about with either!).

 

I already have planning permission in principle for the corner idea, subject to approval of a final plan with dimensions checked for acceptable intrusion into the room space. The spare room has not yet been discussed, as it hadn’t struck me as a viable proposition until since then, but I'm considering it as an alternative suggestion in case any objections are raised.

 

Like probably most people on here, I have a multitude of ideal world layout concepts in my head. Having neither the space nor skills to build the nice spacious double track secondary main line station with gentle curves and an operating well that I’d ideally like, an urban setting probably gives greater scope for using the variety of motive power I have than a branch terminus, as well as a more diverse array of traffic types and operating methods. After reading a lot about Minories and taking some inspiration from the curved approach to Paris Bastille, I’ve come up with the general track layout shown below with modifications to fit both locations. My questions for you really are regarding whether I’ve overlooked any practicalities of this, or am envisaging unrealistic (potentially even dangerous in reality) ways of working it.

 

Right-angled:

 

 

 

Spare room:

 

 

The idea is for a Reading Southern-style terminus with 3 platforms, these being the innermost and centre two lines. While I wouldn’t class this as a Minories layout per se due to the different throat arrangement, the operating concept is the same with various classes of big tank locos and EMUs providing an intensive service over multiple routes at peak times, less frequent local trains mixed with some longer distance services during the day (involving the use of a station pilot), and parcels, newspapers etc. being loaded or received at the platforms by night. On both diagrams the parallel lines of straight track indicate the location of a traverse fiddle yard – this can be assumed to continue to the end of the space available, giving 5’ length in both cases.

 

Firstly, the station throat is designed to allow simultaneous arrivals and departures from any pair of platforms, but I’ve not decided on the most sensible way to arrange sidings for the station pilot or a loco awaiting its next train. While I could use the Minories arrangement of a loco siding off the outgoing line, I’m not that keen on the loco having to reverse out and then draw forwards to the platform.

 

The closest point to access to all three platforms from is the centre of the throat arrangement (between the third and fourth points on the incoming line’s route to the inner two platforms). Using curved Peco Streamline points means there’s no easy way to substitute a double slip for one of the points to put a siding within the throat arrangement, so I’ve taken a siding across the line used to access the outermost platform and goods reception loop. While this seems like a convenient arrangement operationally, I assume this sort of arrangement would be unlikely to be used on safety grounds unless space constraints made it absolutely necessary, and that complicated signalling arrangements would’ve been needed to reduce the risk from this. You’ll notice also that at the moment this is one of three loco spurs, with the outer two having their own for Liverpool Street-style turnarounds. I think this might be overkill in model form, involving more locos sat waiting for trains than the intensity of service actually justifies, and potentially less interesting than the operating method Cyril Freezer envisaged of the loco that brought in the last arrival moving to the head of the following arrival in another platform. Alternatively the siding off the inner line might provide a means of having a single continuous run loop bypassing the fiddle yard at a later stage. I haven’t included trap points in the loco spurs yet as I was short of track pieces in Anyrail, though I realise they’d be needed. 

 

Secondly, I’ve assumed that there’s a dedicated goods yard elsewhere, but the outermost line is a loop used for reception of a daily goods train serving specialised goods facilities accessed from the point that currently leads nowhere. I had envisaged this being operated as follows:

 

 

• Train arrives and loco runs forward into headshunt.
• Loco reverses past its train along the adjacent platform, then draws forward to collect the brake van.
• Loco pulls the brake van clear of the loop point, then pushes it to the end of the platform.
• Loco draws away from the brake van and uses the crossover to re-enter the headshunt, then buffers back up to the train, stops and pushes back further to shunt the yard.
• When shunting is complete, the loco draws the wagons forwards, then runs round and pulls back out of the loop, finally propelling them forwards to the brake van to await departure.

 

If you’ve read this far then thanks for your time, and any feedback regarding this would be gratefully received.
 

[mdvle]

My first thought, given the apparent interest in a minories, is why not just go for a straightforward minories along one wall.  The 9' length gives lots of space for a minories with fiddle yard I would think, yet while giving lots of space for learning about making structures and doing scenery is still small enough that the investment level won't be so bad when the time comes to go for that second layout that takes advantage of everything you have learned building the first.

 

 

[Zomboid]

Is one of the loco spurs accessed via the diamond? That feels a bit unlikely to me. It would be more believable to have a couple of spurs from the same main line connection. Other than that it's quite a good looking arrangement, using the curve of the site to avoid any reverse curves.

[Rising Standards]

@mdvle - You make a good point. The reason I haven't gone for a conventional linear Minories arrangement is purely down to platform and fiddle yard lengths. With these more awkward shapes I can fit in lengths of 5' which I believe should be just enough for 4 suburban coaches and a couple of tank engines (or 4 longer coaches and a bigger loco), whereas fitting the fiddle yard, throat and station into 9' would restrict train lengths quite substantially.

 

@Zomboid - In model form there are advantages to the loco spur over the diamond; it would give the most direct access to the platforms, reduce the amount of running back over the end of the throat into the fiddle yard, and avoid the increase in length or width that the throat arrangement would need to tuck a siding within the lines at that point. I completely agree though that it would be unlikely in reality unless the site was so hemmed in that there really was nowhere else to put it. The alternative I guess would be a spur facing away from the station off the inside or outside platform access routes - I don't suppose it matters which very much.

 

[bigP]

--

 

Edited February 1, 2021 by bigP
Deleted

[Harlequin]

31 minutes ago, bigP said:

Hi,

 

That approach trackwork looks way too complex for what is, in all essence, a three track platform worked intensively by (largely) MUs.

I'm assuming you are using OO here, and in all honesty you don't have too much space to play with, so don't worry about straying too far from Minories - it does the job very well!

 

The freight can't get the departing road from that loop, and shunting to a platform seems a bit 'odd', but you can resolve that with an extra approach pointwork.  Also, diamond crossovers to hold the station pilot?  On a mini terminus in the 60's?

 

Not to be all doom- and-gloom, I had a go in XTrackCAD (as that's what I have to hand)....

 

 

• Your freight can now directly access the loop, and regain the correct road upon leaving too.  Loco cuts off and run round back through P3 and the Headshunt
• Headshunt would just be off scene
• Two trap points in use - keeping the mainlines safe
• Effectively a Minories - all platforms to both main roads and you get simultaneous arrival to P2 or P3 with departure on P1.
• Just as idea - added two carriage sidings to the 'back', and a turntable.  Gives you some shunting to the loco hauled services if you want.
• Would imagine this is best served with a Cassette Fiddle yard.

 

Cheers,

Paul

 

 

 

That is wonderful, Paul!

 

One small point (erm, ha ha): I don't think the trap points are needed because the crossovers would do that job themselves.

 

[bigP]

--

Edited February 1, 2021 by bigP
Deleted

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, bigP said:

 

 

Thanks.

However, I was thinking just earlier on, this could do with your magic touch!

 

Traps.  Yes, possibly not required, but then you would need more signalling/stop boards in the yards to stop shunter moves from colliding with Signaller controlled moves.

Signallers authority needs to stop somewhere, and with the traps a simple ground stop disc, or light signal (aka the ‘dummy’) at the heel end of the traps would suffice.  Everything else inside would be under the shunters authority, so we’ve someone to whip if things go bang like

 

 

Cheers,

Paul

Easily solved with a yellow arm ground signal and possibly a Local Instruction to supplement it - in exactly the same way as it was done in the real world.

 

Apart from the surplus traps it is a pretty good layout for what the OP had in mind.  One less platform face than Reading South and the three EMU stabling sidings reduced to two by turning one of them into a runround loop,  and the turntable moved to a different site nearer the station.  Not any use for freight operation and no room for a goods yard (but then the Reading South freight facilities weren't by the station anyway) but it does allow a lot more scope for engine movement than was the case at Reading South.

[Zomboid]

The approach to Reading South could be forced around a corner. A quick anyrail sketch using the characteristic facing/ trailing crossovers with double slips  on the middle road does work using mostly curved points, but probably not in this space.

Edited April 1, 2020 by Zomboid

[DCB]

Interesting layout. I think I would rotate BigP'/Harlequin's  plan a bit clockwise to get more FY and a bit less platform. I'm not sure the headshunt road on the approach side has any real value now Harlequin has re jigged the Goods approach. The Goods would be handled off peak which may well be only an hourly passenger service.

I did a doodle and can't get both access from the goods to the outgoing line and simultaneous departure from 2 and arrival at 3 without doubling up on crossovers in the throat.   It looks like a lot of point cutting and tweaking or hand building would be needed to optimise the throat.

A 65 ft Turntable would be a good space saver instead of the 75ft.  I have a  10" sort of 62.5 ft which turns my Duchess, MN etc so one ought to turn anything SR/ GWR   I have an idea Brassmasters do one.

[Rising Standards]

Hi folks and thanks for your taking the time to give your thoughts. I hope you won't think me ungrateful for not having responded sooner; I've been reflecting on what I'd like to include and doing more messing about in Anyrail to incorporate some of your ideas.

 

My mention of Reading South in my original post might have been a bit misleading, as I intend for this to be a 'Not Reading', a bit like how Steve Cox's Readham layout has structures from present day Reading and Cheltenham while being neither. I'm aiming for a Reading South kind of appearance in terms of station building, canopies etc., and there will be a similar mix of loco hauled and EMU-based services which will be imagined to represent services on different routes. There will however be a bias towards operation with locos - unrealistic of course given that the electrified route should be busier to justify the cost of electrification, but although the EMU models I have are fantastic, I treat them more as an accompaniment to my steam fleet and don't envisage having many EMU-only running sessions. Also, while I don't intend to represent a particular year, many of my locos carry early crests, and probably the majority of my rakes of coaches are crimson and cream, so I'd prefer to think of it as a nominally mid to late '50s layout to cover the period in which the commonality of the earlier BR livery standard is giving way to the late crest, green and maroon etc.

 

Paul's plan was much appreciated and pointed out the shortcomings of my original throat arrangement. I also really like the idea of having a turntable and short term loco stabling, particularly using a smaller one than the Peco type as David suggested.

 

There are some aspects of my original plan that I'm looking to keep too:

• A pilot spur - station pilot work is one of the things that really appeals to me about this style of layout. One is enough though!
• Ability to have simultaneous arrivals and departures from either left and centre or centre and right platforms - now achieved by doubling up crossovers as David said (I came to the same conclusion on the same night!). This probably is still overkill for 3 platforms, but I'd prefer not to have a dedicated departure platform.
• Traverser style fiddle yard - I'll be operating this on my own most of the time, and sliding a traverser over to change trains seems likely to be more efficient for that than changing cassettes.
• Specialised goods facilities - As well as giving a bit more variety in trains and the potential for unusual wagons, a daily trip from a bigger yard to serve a brewery, factory or similar here gives the opportunity to do a bit of shunting if the mood takes me. I realise this also might be a bit unlikely unless the business has been on the site since before the railway arrived, and carriage sidings are a good idea, but I'm happy to imagine that there are larger carriage sidings (and a loco shed) a short distance down the line.

 

Here's what I have at the moment. That bottom corner feels a bit cramped, but I've accepted that I haven't got room to fit in what I'd like and spread things out more, and if such an improbable place had existed it could have been very hemmed in anyway. The top left corner is left clear in case the plan has to be adapted back to the L-shaped location  - in the spare room that would give some space for scenery hinting at the town.

 

 

 

[bigP]

--

Edited February 1, 2021 by bigP
Deleted

[Flying Pig]

3 hours ago, bigP said:

I know I love my traps, but I'd say that pilot spur definitely needs a trap to protect the mainlines.

 

Could it be connected through to the turntable?

[imt]

30 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

Could it be connected through to the turntable?

 

Well........ What happens when the turntable fails?  No pilot?  Doesn't neeed to be a "real" working trap - could just be a dummy built from rail offcuts for show.

[The Stationmaster]

42 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Could it be connected through to the turntable?

Apart from the turntable failure problem it couldn't access all the terminal roads if it comes via the turntable.

 

I still remain puzzled about where the platform faces will be because the implication seems to be that one could have a facing point for the release crossover - which makes no sense at all to me as it limits the length of trains needing to run round which would be using that platform.

[Flying Pig]

34 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Apart from the turntable failure problem it couldn't access all the terminal roads if it comes via the turntable.

 

I meant could the trap be connected to the turntable, retaining the trailing connection to the down line.  That also provides an alternative exit for train engines with direct access to the platforms.  

[Rising Standards]

16 hours ago, bigP said:

I know I love my traps, but I'd say that pilot spur definitely needs a trap to protect the mainlines.

 

12 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Could it be connected through to the turntable?

 

It's not shown very well at the level of zoom I used to get most of the space in one screenshot, but there was a left hand Peco trap on the pilot spur. Mind you, a loco running against that and derailing would still have blocked the down line, so a standard point is a better solution.

 

I had considered connecting the pilot spur through to the turntable, but I'd always envisaged having that siding specifically as somewhere for the pilot to sit between duties, and thought getting train locos in and out that way while keeping the pilot there would require a siding longer than I had room for. Of course, I've been thinking too specifically about specific movements, and hadn't realised the improvement that would give in overall flexibility - connecting the pilot spur to the turntable doesn't mean it has to be used with any regularity, but it does mean locos can come in and out that way if the pilot is elsewhere.

 

16 hours ago, bigP said:

I still think that you're better off with a cassette yard however.  For a traverser to work:

• the 'inner most' (to your operating room'), on the traverser needs move across to the arrival track, so a departure can return to the station again,
• to enable simultaneous arrivals/departures : the lines in the traverser need to be distanced by the same amount as the up/down tracks as the go off scene
• you are then limited by how many other lines you can get in before you hit the wall

I make that 3 lines in your traverse , maybe 4 at a push.  Would that be enough?

 

Ah, I see what you mean, thank you. Width could be an issue in both potential locations, so there isn't going to be room to bring the layout further away from the wall and increase the number of traverser roads to a more useful figure. There might be a means by which a cassette fiddle yard could be made easier to take down a traverser too if I go for the right-angled plan (the fiddle yard end would need to come apart for access when needed).

 

11 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I still remain puzzled about where the platform faces will be because the implication seems to be that one could have a facing point for the release crossover - which makes no sense at all to me as it limits the length of trains needing to run round which would be using that platform.

 

I've added rough representations of where I envisage having platform faces now, and you're quite right about the release crossover. I initially started off with the facing crossover in the outer platform because I was prioritising loop length for goods trains that would be shunted by the train loco. I didn't really envisage handling many passenger trains in that platform without a station pilot, and when I did briefly try the trailing crossover it also looked less pleasing than how the facing crossover tucked into the easing curve of the platform. Much like the pilot spur above though, I wasn't considering what else the trailing crossover would allow to happen, and it would certainly give potential for things like a loco sorting out its own train in the outer platform at off peak times when a pilot might not be provided. The change of alignment needed also gives a more consistent platform width.

 

The headshunt length needs to remain much as it is to allow a loco and brake van to fit, but I don't think reducing the distance from the release crossover to the point accessing the sidings is going to be an issue. If a newly arrived goods is longer than that (unlikely), I guess it can always draw forward into the siding beyond the crossover to get clear of the yard point and then set back?

 

Incidentally, I have another Peco trap on the exit of the goods sidings at the moment. Would this be needed, or is it OK without due to it exiting onto a goods/loco run-round only loop?

 

[The Stationmaster]

With the latest version of the plan there is no need at all for any trap points additional to various points which work as part of a crossover.  The turntable and goods sidings connect into the run round loop which isn't a passenger line sp technically there is no need to provide trap points.  But if you happen to have a left hand Peco trap you could put it on the line from the turntable to the run round loop and say it was leftover from past layout changes  

 

While I understand why you have drawn the layout the way you have I think I would be more inclined to put the goods sidings in what is currently the top left hand corner which would make them much easier to shunt - just retaining the long siding near the turntable as a shunting spur.  I think it could also be made much better scenically with a low relief goods warehouse etc nearer what is ostensibly 'the town (assuming the station is in the right place in relation to the town.  You could possible retain just a single siding near the shunt spur for use as a coal yard?

 

A  station of this size implies quite a fair sized town so it might well have extensive goods facilities - for which you haven't got room (hence the very extensive goods facilities including goods warehouses on both the GWR and SR at Reading).  Logically the goods facilities at the station would be served by a local trip from a yard which is off scene rather than by any sort of longer distance freight services.  Might restrict your choice of engines of course but it would make a better operational fit with h what is basically a pretty constrained layout for freight traffic.

[Rising Standards]

On 10/04/2020 at 09:59, The Stationmaster said:

While I understand why you have drawn the layout the way you have I think I would be more inclined to put the goods sidings in what is currently the top left hand corner which would make them much easier to shunt - just retaining the long siding near the turntable as a shunting spur.

 

A  station of this size implies quite a fair sized town so it might well have extensive goods facilities...Logically the goods facilities at the station would be served by a local trip from a yard which is off scene rather than by any sort of longer distance freight services.  Might restrict your choice of engines of course but it would make a better operational fit with what is basically a pretty constrained layout for freight traffic.

 

Thanks Mike. That arrangement of a trip from a larger yard in the area is the sort of thing I had in mind, probably serving a specific business (brewery etc.) rather than general sidings, and the likelihood of smaller locos doing those duties is fine as I've got plenty of nondescript black engines to keep occupied.

 

I see the advantage of putting the sidings the other way round - the train can be left in the loop while the loco pulls wagons off the back to deposit them in the sidings, rather than shunting the whole train all the time. It can of course be achieved pretty easily on the spare room plan, but on the right angled version I was initially a bit stuck for how to make space to achieve it. I also realised that the extra crossover for departures from the middle platform was reducing its length on the right angled version, so it couldn't be 5' long on a 9' baseboard length while running parallel to the board edge.

 

The answer seems to be to make the platforms angled compared to the baseboard/wall, which makes space for a few short sidings behind the station and gives a less regimented look to the plan than before, At that angle I could just about squeeze  a 5' long middle platform onto a 9' board, but I've added another 3" to the end to give a small amount of space for the platform round the back of the buffer stops to be seen.

 

I've not really got space to have a station building at the end of the platform on either room plan, so that's something I'm puzzling over at the moment. I'm inclined to go with having it along the innermost platform, and perhaps supplement the walk round the end of the buffer stops for access to the other platforms with an underpass/subway closer to the throat end, unless that seems unlikely in reality?

 

As far as I can see from my rudimentary signalling knowledge, goods siding arrangements aren't likely to make much difference to the signalling needed, so I'm inclined to start thinking more about that. Is the usual etiquette to post again in Permanent Way, Signalling & Infrastructure for guidance regarding that, rather than continuing here?

 

Right angled:

 

 

Spare room:

Edited April 19, 2020 by Rising Standards
Forgot to add diagrams in my rush to post!

[The Stationmaster]

The first thing you need to decide about signalling is who owns the railway. Two companies/BR Regions might be using it but only one of them 'owns' it so it would be their their signalling practice.  You can get away with a sort of mixture by assuming that either things changed over between Companies at some time in pre BR days or the line moved from one BR Region to another (and possibly back again) after nationalisation (e.g Weymouth).

 

But to create the right impression you need to decde your starting point in terms of ownership.  You have one big advantage when it comes to signalling in that you have a track layout which can actually be properly signalled as it is fairly prototypical and relatively straightforward (which makes quite a change from some layouts where folk want signalling help)

[Rising Standards]

Apologies for the complete silence on this for over 2 months. Without going into detail, working from home during lockdown heavily impacted my enthusiasm for home-based hobbies.

 

I’ve always envisaged this as an ex-SR station to make the third rail more believable. I also have a potential head start with SR signalling, as I have 4 Dapol SR stop signals in stock which were picked up cheaply (due to faults) with a view to adapting them to servo control; 1 with a short lattice post, 3 of the taller rail-built type. However, as it stands I suspect they’re of limited use for this plan.

 

In situations like this I generally prefer to have a go at what I think I might need and get feedback, rather than expect people to do all the work from scratch on my behalf. With that in mind, here’s what I think I need based on my very limited knowledge.

 

 

Firstly, an admission on my part. I’ve not seen any indication online of stacked disc signals being commonly used on the southern region to control separate routes. I’ve therefore assumed, knowing full well that assumptions are dangerous, that one shunt disc might have been used to indicate that a move could be made into one of multiple routes? I imagine loco crews generally had a pretty good idea of where they were going next anyway, so the lack of clear route indication from multiple signals would be less of an issue when they should have been moving fairly cautiously anyway.

 

The stop and distant on a shared post would be off-scene. The four-doll signal approaching the station would also either have to be off-scene or right by the scenic break. A loco drawing coaches back on the incoming line before pushing them into another platform would then have to go back into the fiddle yard to wait for the relevant calling-on(?) signal. I can imagine this being a bit of a pain. I’d prefer as much of any shunting of that nature as possible to take place on the scenic section, and initially wondered whether I could put shunt signals between the loco spur exit crossover and facing crossover, this being the closest point from which all 3 platforms can be accessed. However, to get the coaches clear of the point, the loco is still going to pass the stop signals unless they’re much further from the station.

 

I’ve used yellow discs where they seem like they’d be appropriate (if the crossovers aren’t set, they should be OK to pass when horizontal). 3 seems like a lot of them though.

 

Finally, the shunt disc on the outgoing line is on the wrong side because it’d be on the inside of a curve. I theorised that it might be easier to see than if it was on the left, especially when needing to propel a rake of coaches into a platform.
 

If any of that's remotely correct I'll be pleased!

 

[The Stationmaster]

Good start but in need of a touch of 'Southernisation' (if that really is a word).

 

1. The Home Signal would be much more likely to be a single running arm and a subsidiary Calling On arm with a route indicator than a multi doll bracket structure. (although the latter might just about be a hangover from Pre-Group times).

2. The subsidiaries beneath the platform starting signals would be discs, not miniature semaphore arms, on the Southern.

3. The Southern didn't go in for multi arm disc signals so your singletons are ok in form.

4. You definitely need a disc to read back from the 'wrong' line through the other trailing crossover.

5.  The Southern to some extent used what are known as 'leading shunts/discs' to hold the route when the facing points were some distance in advance of running signals - try looking at a few Southern diagrams on the SRS site and elsewhere to get a feel for how that was, and wasn't done.

6.  Think very carefully about shunting moves with that station pilot you are so keen on - normally shunt moves would be over the shortest possible distance so some extra ground discs might be necessary to allow moves to reverse once they are clear of any particular point end (such signals could also serve as leading shunts as well so you kill two birds with one stone.  And don't forget that as far as possible a shunting move coming out of the platforms would, if there were no conflicting moves,  normally go towards the line which leads away from the station, not towards the incoming line.  This allows greater flexibility in shunting in relation to what is happening at the next signal box.

7.  As you have two hand points in the run-round loop I do wonder about the need for that disc at the loop end of the run-round crossover

 

Hope all this helps with your thinking.