Branch station layout

[Joeh260]

With a slight change of space and an increase in time I am looking to finally start the layout. with rather limited knowledge on branch lines its rather difficult to come up with a plan I am happy with. one of the main problems with most plans being storage for rolling stock/locomotives and connecting one end of the layout to the other as it will require a rather long removable bridge spanning from 0ne side to the other side of the room. below is the two track plans that would give me the most storage whilst still keeping a good percentage for scenic. the far left would connect to a traverser which would give the most amount of storage as it removes all sets of points and the far right would go into a sharper curve to send the track in the right direction to get to the other side of the room and reconnect to the fiddle yard. this gives overall around 16ft x 2ft of scenic space and potentially another 12-13ft x 1ft of scenic on the removable board that would connect the two sides together. It could be either double or single track but the traverser will bring running to a halt if a train is to be changed on either circuit which would be the downside of a double track.

 

Other questions I had in relation to the station itself are;

1. Would platforms have ever ran under road bridges? for the layout it may be beneficial to do so to make the platforms look longer than they actually are. this would be so longer trains could then be used and not look to out of place with some of the coaches on non-visible areas whilst stationary in the station.
2. Is there a general layout/design for goods yards when it comes to these sort of stations as the is that much variation its quite difficult to tell what looks right and more typical.

 

 

Any minor or major changes to these initial plans would be much appreciated as I would like to make a start on the layout soon. 

 

thanks

[RJS1977]

Platforms under road bridges were (and still are) very common. It wasn't unusual to have the station building on the bridge with steps down to the platforms.

 

With regards to the goods yard, on the second plan I would expect the sidings to face in the opposite direction so that they are accessed by a trailing point rather than a facing point to make shunting easier. There should also be a headshunt to prevent loose wagons from running away onto the main line and to enable shunting to take place without blocking the line.

[The Johnster]

Facing points on passenger lines needed facing point locks, so were generally avoided in the interests of economy, and safety in the days before fpls were required, so the crossover on the double track version needs to be trailing, not facing. 

[DCB]

The basic principe is trains reverse in to sidings. That way the engine is at the main line end so can pull wagons out of the sidings to re arrange the train. If it went in forwards the engine woud be trapped at the buffers.  There were many many derailments and instances where trains were diverted into sidings at speed so track layouts evolved to minimise the facing points where trains could change tracks without reversing.  Between about 1870 and 1900 it was not unusual for sidings on one side of the line to be accessed via a diamond crossing or single slip off the far track.  This is not a good idea in a model as diamonds and single slips cause derailments on models, I would avoid it,  Many later 1890s on small single track stations both through and terminus had four points giving a loop and two sidings, but a long loop and long sidings, 40 wagon loop and 20 wagon sidings, not the 12 wagon loop and short sidings of models..    Most double track stations had a pair of trailing crossovers, that is where trains had to reverse to change tracks.  This allowed locos to run round their trains to reverse direction.   It also allowed fas trains to overtake slow ones when the sow reversed over to the other track...   Thats how 160 peope were killed at Quintinshill when a local passenger reversed out of the way of an express, the signalmen forgot about it and allowed a special troop train to hit it head on at 70MPH .

Most sidings and the ends of most loops had some means of derailing a train if the points and signals were not set, sometimes just a single point blade.  These are very hard to spot on old photogaphs, much less prominent than the Peco catch point.   Some mainly urban or inductrial area sidings had headshunts, to allow the yaard to be shunted while trains ran through but they were far less common in full size than models, very few GWR stations had them, the main line was used as a shunting neck, but there was unlikely to be better than a passenger train every two hours, so it was no big deal to block the line for 45 minutes or so, equally the loco doing the shuting on the pck up freight may well be a 28XX 2-8-0 or 43XX mogul, it wasn't all Thomas the tank engine playing with 4 wagos. 

The GWR did like short stubs ending in a solid stop block though, maybe two or three wagos long just enough for the loco to clear  the points, tha way a wagon didn't derail, which made retrieveing it easier if it was blown out of its siding or otherwise escaped.  The blocks were also used to buffer locos up against so the driver could slip the wheels to pump water into the boiler before injectors became the norm.  The GWR still had one loco without inectors when BR took over!  (ex LBSC Terrier ex WCPR) 

The Board of tradetried hard to make traps or headshunts compulsory after the Irish Mail hit oil wagons which escaped from Abergele during shunting operations and incinerated some 1st Class passengers, but wthout much success.

Might be better if sidings were LH end?

Doodles supplied to illustrate above

 

 

Edited May 31, 2021 by DavidCBroad
Revised top drawing

[The Johnster]

Top plan retains the facing crossovers.  The third and fifth (bottom) plans are both feasible, and freight trains needing to shunt can, using the crossovers, get the locomotive to the outer end of the sidings whichever direction they come from.  The trap points will be extended to form headshunts if the traffic on the main lines is too busy to allow shunting to take place in the gaps between the trains, always assuming of course that the land is available!

 

One can terminate trains from either direction, and either start them from the platform they arrived at, in which case the crossovers need fpls, or shunt them to the other platform after the arriving passengers have detrained and before the outgoing passengers are permitted to board.  One can also shunt a train to the other running line to enable a faster train to pass it; the ‘Quntinshill shunt’.  In that instance, a local down train was shunted to the up line to allow a late running down WCML express a clear run through.  A troop train was accepted on the up road and collided head on with the forgotten local, and the down express it had been shunted out of the way for ran into the wreckage a few seconds later; the death toll was the highest ever recorded in a British railway accident.  

[DCB]

11 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Top plan retains the facing crossovers.  The third and fifth (bottom) plans are both feasible, and freight trains needing to shunt can, using the crossovers, get the locomotive to the outer end of the sidings whichever direction they come from.  The trap points will be extended to form headshunts if the traffic on the main lines is too busy to allow shunting to take place in the gaps between the trains, always assuming of course that the land is available!

 

One can terminate trains from either direction, and either start them from the platform they arrived at, in which case the crossovers need fpls, or shunt them to the other platform after the arriving passengers have detrained and before the outgoing passengers are permitted to board.  One can also shunt a train to the other running line to enable a faster train to pass it; the ‘Quntinshill shunt’.  In that instance, a local down train was shunted to the up line to allow a late running down WCML express a clear run through.  A troop train was accepted on the up road and collided head on with the forgotten local, and the down express it had been shunted out of the way for ran into the wreckage a few seconds later; the death toll was the highest ever recorded in a British railway accident.  

Cheers, top drawing was wrong now altered.  Many thanks

Edited May 31, 2021 by DavidCBroad

[Joeh260]

I think I will use the last track plan but as a single track. regarding signalling how would signalling work for trains that may be using the station as a terminus and which platform would be used? 

 

[KingEdwardII]

On 30/05/2021 at 06:02, DCB said:

headshunts, to allow the yard to be shunted while trains ran through but they were far less common in full size

Hmm, not sure I agree with that comment, based on the track plans I have access to.

 

For the East Somerset & Cheddar valley line, the majority of stations had the equivalent of a headshunt - notably only the smaller stations with very limited facilities did not have one.

 

Similarly, the line from Welshpool to Aberystwyth had a majority of stations with a headshunt and it is notable that some were added after the GWR took over in 1923.

 

Both of these lines are long single track affairs and none of the stations I am referring to are a terminus (except Aberystwyth itself, but that place was huge and untypical).

 

Probably the main criterion for needing to shunt off the running lines is the number of train crossings that occur. In the case of the East Somerset & Cheddar line, the working timetable shows that a fair number of train crossings did take place, so that this probably drove the need. Clearly on smaller, quieter lines, the need diminishes, especially if working "one engine in steam" on a branch line.

 

Yours,  Mike.

[Titanius Anglesmith]

On 27/09/2021 at 08:01, KingEdwardII said:

Hmm, not sure I agree with that comment, based on the track plans I have access to.

 

For the East Somerset & Cheddar valley line, the majority of stations had the equivalent of a headshunt - notably only the smaller stations with very limited facilities did not have one.

it depends where you look. My local line was (and still is) a busy commuter line, yet the majority of its goods yards never had a headshunt. 

[KingEdwardII]

2 hours ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

My local line was (and still is) a busy commuter line, yet the majority of its goods yards never had a headshunt. 

Interesting - the working timetable for the line should show how the freight workings were fitted in between the passenger traffic. Do you have access to any working timetables for the line?

 

Yours,  Mike.

[Nick Holliday]

14 hours ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

it depends where you look. My local line was (and still is) a busy commuter line, yet the majority of its goods yards never had a headshunt. 

Which local line is that? It sounds unusual that there were no headshunts, if the line was that busy.

[Titanius Anglesmith]

14 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

Interesting - the working timetable for the line should show how the freight workings were fitted in between the passenger traffic. Do you have access to any working timetables for the line?

 

Yours,  Mike.

 

2 hours ago, Nick Holliday said:

Which local line is that? It sounds unusual that there were no headshunts, if the line was that busy.

The LT&SR. I don’t have a WTT, but I do know that by the 1920s there were 25+ trains per day on each of the two main branches. There were something like 24 freight workings a day to various destinations (not including workings to “foreign” destinations). From what I can make out, most stations saw at least two freight trips a day. 

[KingEdwardII]

21 hours ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

The LT&SR. I don’t have a WTT

There are a number of books and related material on the LT&SR incuding track plans and also some copies of various WTTs for the line. The best summary is on the GER Society website here:

 

https://www.gersociety.org.uk/index.php

 

https://www.gersociety.org.uk/index.php/files-emporium-home/tw015-lt-sr-working-timetables-1908

 

Unfortunately, the material is not free, although the prices are relatively modest.

 

It is somewhat ironic that the material is on the GER Society website since the GER and LT&SR were for a long time rivals and were controlled independently until after nationalisation - e.g. the LMS had the LT&SR while GER became part of the LNER.

[Nick Holliday]

23 hours ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

 

The LT&SR. I don’t have a WTT, but I do know that by the 1920s there were 25+ trains per day on each of the two main branches. There were something like 24 freight workings a day to various destinations (not including workings to “foreign” destinations). From what I can make out, most stations saw at least two freight trips a day. 

Bob Essery, in his OPC book, "London, Tilbury & Southend Railway and its Locomotives", provides analyses of both passenger and goods workings in some detail, using information from WTTs for 1890 and 1930. Not being familiar with the intricacies and geography of the LT&SR it is largely double-Dutch to me, but several workings include instructions to "Shunt at Xxxx for ##.## passenger train" leaving plenty of opportunity to use the main line for shunting after the passenger train has passed.

[Titanius Anglesmith]

Thank you for tips. I have already bought some files from the GERS, but not the WTT. I don’t have Essery’s book on the LTSR, but I do have Peter Kay’s extensive series of books. 

[KingEdwardII]

One thing to point out about the LT&SR is that it is mostly 2-track or 4-track, unlike the single track lines I referenced previously. This may affect the availability of the main line for shunting, depending on the frequency of passenger trains.

 

Yours, Mike.

[DCB]

Busy steam age commuter lines were busy getting workers to work in the early ish mornings and from work in the afternoon but didn't keep up the frequency of service through the rest of the day in the way electrified and modern railways using HSTs etc seem to.

[RJS1977]

9 hours ago, DCB said:

Busy steam age commuter lines were busy getting workers to work in the early ish mornings and from work in the afternoon but didn't keep up the frequency of service through the rest of the day in the way electrified and modern railways using HSTs etc seem to.

 

I remember reading many years ago that having an HST sat idle in a siding is as uneconomical as having a 747 stuck in a hangar - the economics of owning/leasing an HST are such that it is better for it to be in service carrying a small number of passengers, than to have it out of service.