Jump to content
 

Moving on from a 6 x 4


Shanghai Diver
 Share

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Shanghai Diver said:

Zomboid I like the idea of the diamond crossing.  I have been working it into a version of all my iterations. If I am reading it correctly, is it a large then small diamond crossing or slip and crossing?  When running an engine round, if it is not a slip it would need two clear lines if not the double slip? That may be naivety at play…

The double diamond one is a long then a short. It's not involved in the run round, the point to the right is the one that would be used for that (I didn't show a crossover to the left which completes the loop.

 

You could put slips in if you want, but I personally wouldn't.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the layout is becoming progressively more impossible to shunt prototypically    there is nowhere to put the  incoming wagons while you sort out the outgoing.

The 22 Nov layout was better than the later ones in that you could use the run round as a headshunt but too much was squeezed in.  Maybe a rationalised 22 Nov would suffice.2113490871_Screenshot(93).png.194d2cba98adb47f8be4397068c5c634.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

I think the layout is becoming progressively more impossible to shunt prototypically  

 

I can see the thinking.  I am sitting on all of this feedback, perhaps too much, but I don't want to end up frustrated.  It's great trying to get to the correct place.  I may end up back at a CJF direct lift but get more out of it having done all this and had all this guidance..

 

On the last version, aside from the kickback, is a direct lift of a real world prototype which operated until 1966 (Launceston).  Did some sites just mean they had to deal with what they had and put up with the difficulties?

 

Ben 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Shanghai Diver said:

@ChimerI’m trying to get my head around a couple of things.  First is going to be basic!  

 

To me this feels like a need to keep a third goods siding in place – move the coal stores and put them in near a short one behind a repositioned engine shed. The goods train then “arrives” into the long siding and then wagons get shunted out. Am I getting this right?  That is why I had three sidings BUT I also get the simplification advocated by @Harlequin

 

The second question I have not been able to work out – the goods run-around.  To your point, I  had this when everything was “north” of the station; we currently have a run-around but that only serves the platform and platform goods area.  Have been looking back at other plans and can’t find a version that really does this, but plenty that have a goods yard with run ins only. Am I completely misunderstanding?! Do I just flip the station and run the goods loop as per the version @Flyingpig built on?  The flipping the station being more of an open question…

 

 

First question, basically yes - and as the outgoing train is likely to be built up in the same long siding, it helps if there's a run-round easily available ...

 

Which is the second question - conveniently answered by @DavidCBroad with his sketch which illustrates what I was thinking, using the passenger run-round as the goods arrival line and the platform road as the goods run-round.

Edited by Chimer
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Shanghai Diver said:

Thanks all for the feedback and builds / removals. Lots to think on.

 

I have been working with some of the thinking -  but came up with questions / needs for clarification if OK?

 

@ChimerI’m trying to get my head around a couple of things.  First is going to be basic!  

 

 

To me this feels like a need to keep a third goods siding in place – move the coal stores and put them in near a short one behind a repositioned engine shed. The goods train then “arrives” into the long siding and then wagons get shunted out. Am I getting this right?  That is why I had three sidings BUT I also get the simplification advocated by @Harlequin

 

The second question I have not been able to work out – the goods run-around.  To your point, I  had this when everything was “north” of the station; we currently have a run-around but that only serves the platform and platform goods area.  Have been looking back at other plans and can’t find a version that really does this, but plenty that have a goods yard with run ins only. Am I completely misunderstanding?! Do I just flip the station and run the goods loop as per the version @Flyingpig built on?  The flipping the station being more of an open question…

 

@Harlequin – running in three full length lines to the station area is more in keeping with the prototype which had that. I felt the need to pull the whole thing “south” an inch or so to accommodate the cattle dock, but it does sit hard up against the wall. Else though, that second platform is a bit useless isn’t it?!

 

Running the kick back off the mainline feels odd though as even in my imaginary world I had considered an issue with a goods spill blocking the line! Am seeing what I can do by working with the points placing. Have been looking at cassettes (there is only ONE four coach train, the rest are three, so workable).

 

@Zomboid I like the idea of the diamond crossing.  I have been working it into a version of all my iterations. If I am reading it correctly, is it a large then small diamond crossing or slip and crossing?  When running an engine round, if it is not a slip it would need two clear lines if not the double slip? That may be naivety at play…

 

Ben

 

Hi Ben,

 

The goods run round, or goods loop, is the magenta one (on a tweaked version of your plan):

2015637496_SouthernL1station.png.964ba1800f69c2af0c08683b21d14c41.png

 

The goods train would run directly into the goods loop or possibly into the platform if it was empty. The signalling should allow either type of arrival so that goods trains can arrive and be dealt with when there are passenger trains in the station or vice versa.

 

It would then get shunted from there into various sidings (the brake van probably being left in the spur at the end of the middle road, the release road, while that's going on).

 

You can probably see why I suggested lengthening it. In that location it shares the release line with the platform and because it would get freed up quite quickly it doesn't get in the way of access to the shed too much. (Lambourn had a similar arrangement.)

 

You might need to give the cattle dock more room in that position but it's quite hidden in that back corner and you could instead make it low relief. Perhaps just show the front fencing with some overhanging foliage to disguise the lack of a back.

 

I'm thinking that there is only one passenger platform side. The goods shed side of the platform would have a fence along it. (See Moretonhampstead.) Two passenger platforms in a little station like this would be very unusual unless it was very busy for some reason. Model BLTs often have more platform capacity than reality, admittedly, but you're fighting for space here and something's got to give!

 

There is just about space for a short extra goods siding, shown in cyan above. That gives you a bit more capacity while still allowing good vehicle access to the yard and the back of the shed.

 

P.S. I am GWR biased but I think these basic principles apply whatever company you're modelling. It would be worth checking with an SR expert, though.

 

P.P.S. Wallingford is a good example of a private industry siding (a dairy) kicking back off the main line just outside the station. Milk tankers were brought in with the goods train and then worked back up the line to the dairy.

 

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

The goods train would run directly into the goods loop or possibly into the platform if it was empty. The signalling should allow either type of arrival so that goods trains can arrive and be dealt with when there are passenger trains in the station or vice versa.

 

@The Stationmaster has often said that this would be very untypical for a small station, and the signalling would often allow trains to arrive only on the platform road. In that plan above, signalling the goods loop for arrivals would over-complicate the signalling, especially with those shed and turntable connections which would have to be worked from the ‘box instead of being hand points. Im no expert on the GWR (or SR) though so happy to be corrected. 

 

Edit- ... but I also acknowledge that prototypical practice doesn’t always make for fun model railway operation...

Edited by Titanius Anglesmith
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
39 minutes ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

 

@The Stationmaster has often said that this would be very untypical for a small station, and the signalling would often allow trains to arrive only on the platform road. In that plan above, signalling the goods loop for arrivals would over-complicate the signalling, especially with those shed and turntable connections which would have to be worked from the ‘box instead of being hand points. Im no expert on the GWR (or SR) though so happy to be corrected. 

 

Edit- ... but I also acknowledge that prototypical practice doesn’t always make for fun model railway operation...

 

Yes I know, but I think that was in reference to stations that didn't have a specific goods acceptance line.

 

Where a station has a goods acceptance line, like this one, and the purpose of it is to allow both passenger and goods to be handled in the station at the same time, then it would be signalled appropriately.

 

I'll try to find a signalling diagram for Launceston to see how it really worked.

 

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Yes I know, but I think that was in reference to stations that didn't have a specific goods acceptance line.

 

 

I think 'goods reception' would be better terminology.

 

Launceston signal diagram here.  No running signal into the siding, but there is a disc next to the home in the 1943 layout. That doesn't prove that trains would be allowed to arrive past the disc however.

 

Btw I'm not convinced that a GWR branch originally built to broad gauge is the best prototype for the OP.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s a wonderful complexity to this. It makes my crazy job seem somewhat straightforward.

 

On 05/12/2020 at 00:25, Flying Pig said:

Btw I'm not convinced that a GWR branch originally built to broad gauge is the best prototype for the OP

 

That’s sent me on an interesting diversion.  It’s probably NOT the primary focus (and my knowledge of signalling is near zero) but is a fair point.  It ended me up back at my original well.  Stockbridge became LSWR and is not a BLT, but with the bridge over the end of the station could have a feel of one

 

As I have said, this is a fantasy location to learn.  It didn’t have a TT or GS, hence my diversion to creating my own plan, but with the thought and guidance it may have more going for it now.  And is obviously a LSWR / SR prototype.

 

Both lines have kickbacks with no FP formations. This sidings have a runaround and there is a signal plan here.  As a novice I struggled to see much difference in the signalling between SR and GWR.  A trip to Romsey box would help but that is months (and miles) away!

 

Stockbridge does give an excuse to push the sidings, bar one, up to the top of the board.  Does this simplify things?  It does to my mind which probably means it doesn't. The kickback up siding creates a place to put the TT and GS.  There is some form of (not mileage) on the down siding at the bottom.

 

I also liked the platform more on reflection – it accommodates the single siding @Harlequin has convinced me of and the ramp up to the platform was interesting. And very similar to @DavidCBroad suggest.  Version 5 is the better solution I think than 6. The GS can move to the right a bit. The siding above it becomes the goods reception.

 

However the whole narrows to the corseted middle look. It seems a little contrived to link the CS/WT link of the TT to the higher goods siding to fill out but I am not feeling a desire for the kickback siding…and it may be even worse to shunt although my 'paper plays' have suggested it could be OK.

 

On balance I think I err towards ‘2’/’3’ (with a full runaround) with a Stockbridge style station with an eye to ‘5’.  2/3 feels more rounded.

 

Apologies for the rambling and thanks for the support and feedback to get here.

 

Ben

Consolodated SR.png

Edited by Shanghai Diver
Added additional content
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Honestly, I think @DavidCBroad's simplification of the 22nd November layout is probably the best bet (though I would still like to see my double loop variant drawn to scale).  It's an extremely conventional model railway plan, and has the advantage over Launceston derivatives that the platform is behind most of the track.  I don't think it would be hard to give it an LSWR feel, perhaps with input from stations further west than Hampshire and a holiday narrative would justify your outsize loco facilities and biggish engines to some extent.  It also accommodates the long kickback better than Launceston if the additional operational possibilities of that are attractive.

 

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To add some Southern flavour you can pinch elements from a number of stations in the west.

Seaton, Sidmouth, Ilfracombe and Bude all had two platforms, and saw additional traffic on summer Saturdays so could justify the extra loco facilities.

Seaton is very basic, Bude and Ilfracombe have turntables. Bude had a goods branch to the quay, while Sidmouth had a rail served gas works. 

 

cheers

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
34 minutes ago, Rivercider said:

To add some Southern flavour you can pinch elements from a number of stations in the west.

Seaton, Sidmouth, Ilfracombe and Bude all had two platforms, and saw additional traffic on summer Saturdays so could justify the extra loco facilities.

Seaton is very basic, Bude and Ilfracombe have turntables. Bude had a goods branch to the quay, while Sidmouth had a rail served gas works. 

 

cheers

 

That all sounds like much more fertile territory.

 

It wasn't my intention to push you towards Launceston, Ben. It was just that I saw some similarities that I thought resolved some of the problems with your earlier plans.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

That all sounds like much more fertile territory.

 

It wasn't my intention to push you towards Launceston, Ben. It was just that I saw some similarities that I thought resolved some of the problems with your earlier plans.

 

 

 

It's all good and part of the learning process and hugely helped on beginning to see problems that I had previously created.  You've all pulled me to resources I have not investigated before.

 

This is all new and very different from a lift and shift set track approach which I have used the past 40 years (with a hiatus in the middle).

 

Ben

Edited by Shanghai Diver
Added.
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

Honestly, I think @DavidCBroad's simplification of the 22nd November layout is probably the best bet (though I would still like to see my double loop variant drawn to scale).  It's an extremely conventional model railway plan, and has the advantage over Launceston derivatives that the platform is behind most of the track.  I don't think it would be hard to give it an LSWR feel, perhaps with input from stations further west than Hampshire and a holiday narrative would justify your outsize loco facilities and biggish engines to some extent.  It also accommodates the long kickback better than Launceston if the additional operational possibilities of that are attractive.

 

 

Thank you.  I'll see what I can do with he double loop...I've perhaps been round my own loop, but that is fine!

Edited by Shanghai Diver
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...