Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've been asked by someone to help design his next project, the name is just a placeholder for the time being.

 

The board are recycled from something else and he wants to try and use the stuff that is already in situ (mainly platforms).

 

I have sketched out a rough idea on Xtrkcad based upon his requests and would appreciate people casting an eye over to see if I have messed up anywhere.

 

The shape isn't negotiable and off scene isn't a factor at this stage as I have been asked to focus on the Station and goods yard area.

 

The platforms cannot be moved as they are already extant however the goods yard are is largely able to be move around.

 

Likewise he wants the junction at the right hand side and is considered a must have.

 

Thank you in advance for any assistance.

Screenshot_20201007-233641.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the era, location etc? Does the owner have any interest in any particular industry or anything like that?

 

And are the heavy lines to the right physical constraints of any type? Which is the viewing/ operating side? Presumably it's OO and you've used peco track?

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

What's the era, location etc? Does the owner have any interest in any particular industry or anything like that?

 

And are the heavy lines to the right physical constraints of any type? Which is the viewing/ operating side? Presumably it's OO and you've used peco track?

 

Sorry!

 

Era is the 1930s, no interest in any particular industries and location wise he is wanting something in Shropshire/Staffordshire area.

 

He particularly wants to run a mixture of LMS and GWR locos so we had discussed an alternative version of Market Drayton (his hometown) where the LMS was the major player.

 

The black lines to the right are areas where there is not trackbed on the pre existing boards.

 

The scale is 00 and he wants to use Peco Streamline.

 

Hope that helps

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd guess then that pre-LMS that would have been LNWR in that general area? A fairly generic LNWR junction station would seem the place to start.

 

I don't know much about such things, just trying to get a handle on the sensible boundaries...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I'd guess then that pre-LMS that would have been LNWR in that general area? A fairly generic LNWR junction station would seem the place to start.

 

I don't know much about such things, just trying to get a handle on the sensible boundaries...

 

Market Drayton was NSR and GWR. Ive got a different diagram which may help a bit more. Especially since I've noticed the other diagram doesn't actually have the junction on it. :blush:

Screenshot_20201008-092836.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the back story could still be that the LMS was the major player because the LNWR were there first... Or have I read it backwards, and the LMS always were the big deal there?

 

Either way, I suppose whichever company is deemed to be the big deal, in the 1930s, chances are that the station would be largely characteristic of the pre-grouping company that built it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be correct we’re looking at Code 75 flat bottom rail: the Xtrkcad screen shot appears to show an asymmetric 3-way point (I think that’s the only difference in geometry in the main ranges)?

 

Can have implications for ruling radius, although I don’t think it looks an issue here.

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As Zomboid says it would be worth looking at some prototypes.  Pending that, I like it apart from the handling of the bay platform and the associated loops which don't look like any prototype formations I've seen. 

 

How would a bay be used - do you even need one at this station? It isn't nearly big enough to terminate traffic off two double track routes, which presumably continue to a larger joint station along a section of joint line.  So effectively it's just a wayside station on two separate lines. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

It looks good but it's not clear what the bay platform is for. And is it a "bay" if the track doesn't terminate?

 

(The horribly jaggy graphics from Xtrkcad make it difficult to see the exact details of some of the crossings.)

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit less ambition might help with squeezing a junction into a simple through station.

There were lines with both LMS and GWR trains,  Gloucester Bristol for one.

I did a doodle based on the original drawing , the one without the junction with three platforms.

Platforms generally have a purpose, either real or imagined, I'm talking 12" to the foot here, 

Platforms for different destinations or for traffic regulation as it was frowned on to stop passenger trains other than at platforms, especially after dark.  Traffic regulation to get trains in the right order so late running expresses don't get stuck behind stopping passengers etc and then crash as in Quintinshill or Harrow...   It is also handy to have platforms so a local arriving at the junction station can disgorge its passengers to join a train on the other line.  (Not strictly necessary, see Cheltenham MR.)    I would suggest a bi directional back platform line to serve a single line branch.   One where trains don't terminate but two flows join, like Stanley Junction and where the Exe Valle line leaves the GW main line.  The lack of a RTL curved diamond makes junction trackwork on a curve a pain hence the plan I drew.   I I also assumed there was little space for the junction beyond the platform hence the juxtaposition of the diamond  and points.

Enjoy.

Screenshot (19).png

Screenshot (20).png

Screenshot (21).png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the original CAD plans the main platforms are seriously long - about 6 feet. But no train even half that length can negotiate anything to the right of the station, as shown they fall off the end of the layout before clearing the last point. So either you have short trains in very long platforms, or something has to happen at the right hand end to enable trains to come and go, a traverser or something. 

 

I tink there may be quite a few flaws in the propsed layout to the left of the station, but given the quality of what we can see, its very hard to tell.

 

This one could run and run...

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Based on the original CAD plans the main platforms are seriously long - about 6 feet. But no train even half that length can negotiate anything to the right of the station, as shown they fall off the end of the layout before clearing the last point. So either you have short trains in very long platforms, or something has to happen at the right hand end to enable trains to come and go, a traverser or something. 

 

I tink there may be quite a few flaws in the propsed layout to the left of the station, but given the quality of what we can see, its very hard to tell.

 

This one could run and run...

 

The layout continues on addition to what can be seen here but I have been asked just to focus on this area for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Well the back story could still be that the LMS was the major player because the LNWR were there first... Or have I read it backwards, and the LMS always were the big deal there?

 

Either way, I suppose whichever company is deemed to be the big deal, in the 1930s, chances are that the station would be largely characteristic of the pre-grouping company that built it.

 

The GWR was the main player around Market Drayton from what I can tell but it's easy enough to imagine the role reversing.

 

3 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Would it be correct we’re looking at Code 75 flat bottom rail: the Xtrkcad screen shot appears to show an asymmetric 3-way point (I think that’s the only difference in geometry in the main ranges)?

 

Can have implications for ruling radius, although I don’t think it looks an issue here.

 

Code 75 for the time being although if he changes his mind it wouldn't be hard to swap the point over.

 

2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

As Zomboid says it would be worth looking at some prototypes.  Pending that, I like it apart from the handling of the bay platform and the associated loops which don't look like any prototype formations I've seen. 

 

How would a bay be used - do you even need one at this station? It isn't nearly big enough to terminate traffic off two double track routes, which presumably continue to a larger joint station along a section of joint line.  So effectively it's just a wayside station on two separate lines. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

It looks good but it's not clear what the bay platform is for. And is it a "bay" if the track doesn't terminate?

 

(The horribly jaggy graphics from Xtrkcad make it difficult to see the exact details of some of the crossings.)

 

The bay is the area I am least happy with to honest and is the area I most want to change so any suggestions are welcome. I've already asked him if it is neccsescary after this topic.

1 hour ago, DavidCBroad said:

A bit less ambition might help with squeezing a junction into a simple through station.

There were lines with both LMS and GWR trains,  Gloucester Bristol for one.

I did a doodle based on the original drawing , the one without the junction with three platforms.

Platforms generally have a purpose, either real or imagined, I'm talking 12" to the foot here, 

Platforms for different destinations or for traffic regulation as it was frowned on to stop passenger trains other than at platforms, especially after dark.  Traffic regulation to get trains in the right order so late running expresses don't get stuck behind stopping passengers etc and then crash as in Quintinshill or Harrow...   It is also handy to have platforms so a local arriving at the junction station can disgorge its passengers to join a train on the other line.  (Not strictly necessary, see Cheltenham MR.)    I would suggest a bi directional back platform line to serve a single line branch.   One where trains don't terminate but two flows join, like Stanley Junction and where the Exe Valle line leaves the GW main line.  The lack of a RTL curved diamond makes junction trackwork on a curve a pain hence the plan I drew.   I I also assumed there was little space for the junction beyond the platform hence the juxtaposition of the diamond  and points.

Enjoy.

Screenshot (19).png

Screenshot (20).png

Screenshot (21).png

 

I like the idea I will put that forward and see what is said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Aire Head said:

The bay is the area I am least happy with to honest and is the area I most want to change so any suggestions are welcome. I've already asked him if it is neccsescary after this topic.

Modellers like bay platforms much more than real railways ever did. A sort of wayside junction like this seems to be probably wouldn't have one really.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/10/2020 at 11:57, DavidCBroad said:

The lack of a RTL curved diamond makes junction trackwork on a curve a pain hence the plan I drew.   

I know it is possible to alter a diamond and curve it to a degree by cutting the ties (usually 3rd to 4th of each connection) that link the sleepers on the track underside based on my experiences of modifying a code 75 double slip. 

 

As a caveat I'm not sure how much flex there will be available in a diamond using this technique, if the OP has an old one to spare it may be worth trying this and seeing how much curve is possible.  Then there's also the potential issue of maintaining trouble free running.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, B McG said:

I know it is possible to alter a diamond and curve it to a degree by cutting the ties (usually 3rd to 4th of each connection) that link the sleepers on the track underside based on my experiences of modifying a code 75 double slip. 

 

As a caveat I'm not sure how much flex there will be available in a diamond using this technique, if the OP has an old one to spare it may be worth trying this and seeing how much curve is possible.  Then there's also the potential issue of maintaining trouble free running.

 

A Code 100 diamond is shown modified in this post on @JamieR4489's Tuxford North thread. It appears that the long moulded checkrails on the obtuse crossings are a problem.

 

@LNER4479 describes altering a slip for Grantham in this post.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the lower plan, the junction to the right of the station needs to be a proper double to single layout as @DavidCBroad drew it.  What you have would almost certainly not be permitted in the 'traditional' era of mechanical signalling due to the facing point on the main line.  Ok from about the 1960s onwards if the branch survived.

 

It occurs to me also that access to the goods yard is a bit odd on most of your plans.  Again, it would be useful to look at prototypes, but my guess is that both the LNWR and GWR would have used the conventional layout - i.e. a simple trailing crossover from the adjacent running line at the left hand end and a trailing crossover through a diamond or single slip at the right next to the platform ends.  You got the left hand crossover in your first iteration, but it seems to have mutated in subsequent ones. 

 

N.B. - for prototype layouts, check the links in the pinned post at the top of the signalling forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have realised that I have missed out a couple of trailing connections.

 

One by the goods yard and one by the junction. 

 

They are sketched in here where I will add them next time I get a chance.

FB_IMG_1602440593057.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, since wobbly sketches are now in play, here's one illustrating my comments about the goods yard.  The left hand blue crossover could probably be omitted if a single slip was used by the platforms instead of a diamond.  Green crossover gives direct access to dock sidings.

 

I think your rh red crossover could be omitted by substituting a trailing single slip in the junction.  This was certainly done in some places and would look interesting - I don't know if the companies involved here would have countenanced it though.  It would of course only allow shunts via the lower branch.

 

Studio_20201011_215410.jpg.95083ad371c585e1593341f04e2c539a.jpg

  • Like 1
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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.