Jump to content
 

London Road - LNWR 1907


Jol Wilkinson
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
On 31/03/2021 at 19:19, Grovenor said:

Terminating in a through platform is easier than a bay as the release crossover will be out in the other throat, and you have the flexibility ro use them as through platforms when needed. I would not convert them to Bays, it limits the options for no gain.

 

I do like stations that have a combination of through platforms and bays but you are quite right. As modellers, we tend to think that a through platform means that the trains go through and a dead end platform is for trains to terminate in.

 

In real life, there were many places, some in very odd places, where trains would terminate when you wouldn't necessarily think they might.

 

Mansfield Midland was a great example. 3 platform faces, all through platforms, yet well over 100 trains a day started or ended their journeys there in pre WW1 days, with only 4 that went through.

 

That sort of operation has always appealed to me.

 

I think the new layout will be most interesting as Jol has it laid out.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jol,

I have been studying your propossed track plan, and I have one suggestion, that you move the crossover at the right hand end in towards the platforms as tight as possible, this may remind you very much of the way London Road was as a through layout, but it does mean that platform 2 can be bydirectional.

This makes better sense of the layout at the right hand end. It was rare for us to use the facility at exhibitions but could be fun in use at home.

Regards, Tony.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm mixed up as to which is the right hand end, to me it looks as though the existing track is the right hand end and the new track will be the left hand end and the platforms number from the top down in the plan. Which makes platform 2 bi-directional already, and platforms 3 and 4 can depart to the right but not arrive from the left, so ok for terminating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've changed the schematic slightly to clarify the existing trackwork and added the platforms which will hopefully make things clearer. I have no plans to change the existing trackwork or infrastructure, but intend to add the proposed trackwork areas and extend the platforms as shown to make them of roughly equal lengths.

 

 

1521104100_Newlayout2T.jpg.ea88a8fd0e4375ca072f6dd031310649.jpg

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Northroader said:

Would it be alright to add a short dead end spur where the track from 3/4 exits back on to your double line, particularly if you’re doing run round moves on those lines?

I'm not sure what benefit it would give. The loco from a terminating train can cross through  the trailing crossover and platform 1 or 2 from to run round onto its train or go into the loco shed.

 

I've looked through the few prototype LNWR track plan or signalling books I have and such a compact station complex as this doesn't appear in any of them, so I haven't been able to find any guidance there.

10 hours ago, Paul Cram said:

Hi Jol

 

Looking at the left hand side it seems that trains can only arrive on platform 1 and 2. That wold mean that if trains from there terminate and need to be stored in the carriage sidings it is a convoluted move to get there.

 

Paul,

 

perhaps I should have explained that I see trains terminating/returning as arriving from the RH end, i.e. from the main centre of population in my imaginary scenario as mentioned in my post on Wednesday. That was my idea when I drew up the trackwork at the RH end for the extension to the original London Road terminus track plan. As you know we never ran any terminating trains on the layout at exhibitions as the schedule that Richard drew up catered only for through and stopping trains to provide the maximum movement and entertainment for viewers. Even then we occasionally got complaints about "why aren't there more trains".

 

The carriage /cleaning bay platform sidings aren't really long enough to accommodate more than one set of carriages in total, so could only hold a couple of short trains, say 6 six wheelers or 4/5 forty two foot bogie coaches which  would be okay for local terminating trains.

 

Jol

Edited by Jol Wilkinson
Additional text
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul Cram said:

We diid use tham on one occaision when there were problems at the other end and we could't run trains through. 

Hi Paul,  

 

I think that was at York when we had that odd electrical problem at the end of platform 4, after 30 or so minutes of checking various connections it cured itself.

 

 

1 hour ago, billbedford said:

I'm assuming you see through trains using platforms 1 and 3, and terminating locals 2 and 4?

Hello Bill,

 

The majority of services will be stopping or through trains. If solely trains from the RH end terminate, then platform 3 would be best. The train engine can run round through the crossover further to the left and through platform 1 or 2 before backing in to platform 3. It could back through platform 4 but that then "closes" that line momentarily and is also a wrong road working, although that may not be wrong. I don't have any details on LNWR practises in such circumstances but can contact the Richard Foster of the LNWR Society for his view. He advised on the track formation and signalling for the RH end. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, that was not what I was thinking about. If platforms 1&2 were through roads then there is a section of track just before the crossover at the lefthand side which is bi-directional, this maybe OK for modern layouts but not likely in pre-grouping ones. 

 

I'm also assuming that the modern convention for platform numbering applies, ie up platforms have odd numbers, down have even. Though I'm not sure whether the LNWR did the same. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, billbedford said:

Thanks, that was not what I was thinking about. If platforms 1&2 were through roads then there is a section of track just before the crossover at the lefthand side which is bi-directional, this maybe OK for modern layouts but not likely in pre-grouping ones. 

 

I'm also assuming that the modern convention for platform numbering applies, ie up platforms have odd numbers, down have even. Though I'm not sure whether the LNWR did the same. 

 

Very interesting, Bill.

 

Looking through the LNWR Track Diagram and SRS books I have it appears that the LNWR numbered the platform "faces" sequentially as I have done. There are, as usual, some anomalies in the larger stations where bays are included. So 1 and 2 on my diagram are Up, 3 and 4 are Down, which is how it was operated when we took it out to exhibitions.

 

I also looked on a number of websites and forums. A search for Signal Box Diagrams produced some that showed platforms on the diagram but they weren't numbered. The excellent Warwickshire Railways site shows Birmingham New Street in the 1950s was numbered sequentially with P1 being nearest the ticket office and entrance. , but the earlier plans don't have platform numbering.  A discussion on the RailUK forums in 2014 showed  stations , mainly on the route out of Paddington, having the platforms sequentially numbered with 1 often the Up platform but some times as the nearest to the station entrance, irrespective of direction of travel. Ipswich Station Up platform, nearest the entrance is number 2, platforms 4 and 5 are down platforms (5 usually for the line to Cambridge and the west), 1 and 2 are the bays for the Felixstowe branch.

 

So the odds for up and evens for down doesn't seem to apply in many cases and I need to reverse the numbering on London Road  to make Platform 1 nearest to the station entrance (at the bottom of the diagram).

 

2 hours ago, billbedford said:

One more thing, will the goods siding be long enough to use as a lay-by?

I don't know yet, I have drawn up the schematic but have yet to wrestle with Templot. I may be able to make it long enough to hold a goods train, so would probably need a clear 5ft or more.

 

 

Edited by Jol Wilkinson
Amended text
Link to post
Share on other sites

No further "physical" progress to date but the first order with cutting diagram for the birch ply has been sent to the local supplier. I hope to pick it up in a couple of weeks but it may be ready sooner. I will then also pick up the wood for the legs, etc. from one of the DIY warehouses. I can then build the storage yard baseboards and plan the "circular" boards for the ends. The are already drawn up on CorelDraw but I want to get the dimensions millimeter accurate.

 

I have also been coming to terms with Templot, relearning what I had forgotten and more. Progress is slow, especially as we are having the front drive, side access to the garage, patio, etc. ripped out (it is old concrete) and replaced with block paving so I am in regular discussion as to how we want this or that done.

 

As an aside does anyone know the supplier of the cobweb bedecked lamp in this photo? It was the only item that appears to have suffered when the boards were move to the Palais du Jardin from the old house. The brass tube that forms the core and one half of the circuit to the bulb is broken above the wide base and only the wire passing through it is holding it together. It isn't from Gaugemaster/DCC Concepts and I can't find it elsewhere. The shape of the lamp top is the critical thing.

Otherwise I will need to find another lamp different to the DCC Concept type on the platform.

 

293282540_Bridgeatlampostend.JPG.b2bd2804da026eae7e6376251114d4a3.JPG

 

P.S.

 

I have just heard that the timber supplier is out of one thickness of the ply and won't get any for about three weeks.  :(

 

Edited by Jol Wilkinson
Additional text
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Not much action recently as the Head of Household Affairs has required my attention to build new bedroom furniture, fix creaky floorboards and a host of other things that are still ongoing.

 

However, I collected the first lot of birch ply and timber late last week. I'll have to clear of the work bench in the garage soon so I can start assembling the longitudinal "girders" and end plates to make up the frames and then attach the cross bearers and tops. I prefer dry, warm weather for doing this as I can set up the compound mitre saw outside.

 

There are also some bits for the end segments of the layout but I'll finalise the exact designs for those when I've finalised the Templot track plan and erected the two storage yard base boards.

 

1992718736_Storagebaseboardstimber.jpg.89ce8cf4657e9413659b415368496b45.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 30/03/2021 at 20:37, Keith Turbutt said:

Jol,

We displayed John Redrups London Road  terminus boards as a static exhibit at the 2019 AGM at Woodbridge. There were some good eye level photos/views looking through under the bridge. Can't post them here as my computer is at the doctor's! Perhaps you have some.

 

Screenshot_20210426-225353.png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • RMweb Gold

I'm very sorry to hear that Jol. Here's hoping things improve soon and you can get back to the modelling.

Regards Lez.

Edited by lezz01
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hi John,

 

sadly the sight in my right eye will always be adversely affected to some degree. However I am now able to drive again and have assembled two of the new baseboards. The next test will be doing fine modelling fine work but I am waiting for a further check up before my optician will finalise the prescription I need for close work specs.

 

Regards,

 

Jol

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 17
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...