Single track passing station with branch line junction idea

[Jenks465]

Hi all, I've recently moved into a new property with a little space that I'm able to use for a layout. After a bit of messing around on Anyrail I've come up with the idea below and was wondering if anyone had any thoughts or suggestions? 

 

[Harlequin]

Hi Jenks465 and welcome to the forum,

 

I like it! Only some minor things:

 

It might look better if the main through line were more "continuous" at top left, if you see what I mean? The turn through the double slip especially  is going to be quite sharp.

 

Could the goods sidings be longer, especially with a bit more length beyond the shed to allow more vans to be pushed through before the yards needs to be re-shunted?

 

Remember to leave room for ash handling, coaling and water outside your engine shed.

 

Technically you might need some sort of trapping at both ends of the passing loop. That could be either real pointwork (possibly by adjusting some of the turnout positions at the top), could just be cosmetic, or could be deliberately "overlooked" if you're not that fussed.

 

[The Stationmaster]

Trapping of passing loops is quite a complex area dependent on a variety of factors so very firmly in the 'might need' category.  The vast majority of passing loops didn't have trap points although, for example, the GWR added them at some places on a number of West Country branches during the 1930s in order to improve line capacity by reducing the time taken for trains to cross each other at such loops.

[clachnaharry]

16 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The vast majority of passing loops didn't have trap points although, for example, the GWR added them at some places on a number of West Country branches during the 1930s in order to improve line capacity by reducing the time taken for trains to cross each other at such loops.

 

How does that work? Does the trap remove a requirement to bring the train to a standstill at the home signal before allowing it to proceed the loop?

[Jenks465]

Thanks Harlequin, been enjoying reading the forums for a while and picking up ideas and now have the opportunity to make a start on a proper layout.

Thanks for the suggestions, do you mean something like this? 

[Blandford1969]

3 hours ago, clachnaharry said:

 

How does that work? Does the trap remove a requirement to bring the train to a standstill at the home signal before allowing it to proceed the loop?

No, the trap just means if you try to go without the road it traps you and puts you in the dirt with a lot of explaining. 

[clachnaharry]

Yes  - but that doesn't explain how the provision of traps speeds up the crossing process.

 

[ITG]

Welcome.

Maybe the curved platform line looks a little on the tight (radius) side. There’ll probably be some sizeable gaps for passengers to jump 8nto coaches! That said, space is always a compromise, and easing the curve may impact on space available on the inside for goods yard. Also, I wonder if there’s only 2 (of the 3) usable goods roads, as the incoming train will have to draw into one of them, before accessing the headshunt. Might it work better if the headshunt was directly off the loop, so a train could draw into it, and then all 3 roads were off the headshunt itself. That way, an incoming goods train from the east (right) could still run round if needed, in the loop.

[Satan's Goldfish]

1 hour ago, Jenks465 said:

Thanks Harlequin, been enjoying reading the forums for a while and picking up ideas and now have the opportunity to make a start on a proper layout.

Thanks for the suggestions, do you mean something like this? 

 

How often do you envisage trains passing from the through line to the branch line? Asking because if you imagine the 2 through platforms to be directional (inner curved platform is anticlockwise, outer platform clockwise) and the link to the branch rarely used as a through route; if you moved the point for the link line to the 'clockwise' platform line then it would/could be a trailing point, your loops for both through platforms could be slightly longer, and transferring stock from the through line to the branch line a bit more operationally interesting.

 

Hope that makes sense!

[Steven B]

How important is the terminus area? I'd consider removing it and making the main radius of the line down the right had side larger.

 

Have a look at the likes of Georgemass Junction, Dingwall and Crainlarich for ideas around a station on single track with a junction to a branch line.

 

Having the branch built to a lower standard than the "main" would give reason for a shed to be located there - allowing trains to split with a portion heading off down the branch with the smaller/lighter loco based at the station.

 

There'd be nothing to stop you using the through station as a terminus for some trains

 

Steven B

[Harlequin]

2 hours ago, Jenks465 said:

Thanks Harlequin, been enjoying reading the forums for a while and picking up ideas and now have the opportunity to make a start on a proper layout.

Thanks for the suggestions, do you mean something like this? 

 

Yes, sort of, but when I first looked at the plan I didn't twig that the dotted line leaving the scene top left was the branch. For some reason I thought it was the main line...

 

@Satan's Goldfish is right about the link line and @ITG is right about the curves - I think they look bad partly because of the way AnyRail draws platforms and other shapes. It looks like there's room for a nice continuous sweeping curve through the station.

 

The triangular platform has real character - don't lose it!

 

[Jenks465]

Thanks for all the ideas, plenty to play around with when I get the chance.

The idea is for the platform curves to be wider radius in the end, but I used a piece of 4th radius and 3rd radius set track in the initial plan to make sure that there was enough space for the goods yard inside the inner platform.

[ikcdab]

7 hours ago, clachnaharry said:

 

How does that work? Does the trap remove a requirement to bring the train to a standstill at the home signal before allowing it to proceed the 

It's slightly more complex than that.  If a signal is being held at danger, the trains needs to be brought nearly to a stand at the previous signal before allowing it to proceed. That rule applies irrespective of trap points.

On the GW (I don't know about other railways) you could only admit one train into a loop at a time. So if both crossing trains turned up at the same time,  one would stand at the home signal until the other had arrived in the loop. The interlocking enforced this rule.

However, if facing traps were provided, this rule didn't apply. So although both trains had to be brought nearly to a stand, both could enter the loop at the same time. 

Ian C

[KingEdwardII]

44 minutes ago, Jenks465 said:

The idea is for the platform curves to be wider radius

I think that you should do everything possible to relax the radii of the two through lines as much as possible through the platforms. By contrast, the curves on the goods yard can be tightened as much as necessary. This gets you nearer to prototypes - I am minded that the passenger platforms at Winchester are dead straight, while the goods yard (long turned into a car park) use to involve 2 90 degree turns within the length of the platforms.

 

One other idea is to flip the branch and main lines at the top left and bring the branch onto the outside of an island platform, rather than into a bay - you already have the makings of an island platform. Prototypes for this kind of arrangement are places like Dulverton on the Taunton - Barnstaple line and Bewdley on the Severn Valley line, although the organization of the junction(s) were a little different in both cases.

[Jenks465]

So, I've had another go incorporating the suggestions to increase the curve radius through the platforms, reversed the junction to the branch and moved the headshunt off the loop. Certainly seems like it would take some interesting moves to get stock to and from the branch!   

 

[The Stationmaster]

On 22/10/2021 at 12:12, clachnaharry said:

 

How does that work? Does the trap remove a requirement to bring the train to a standstill at the home signal before allowing it to proceed the loop?

Exactly so.  Provided the loop ends with a trap point then there is no need to bring to a stand a train entering that loop when it is crossing a train in the opposite direction.  So if both loops have trap points at their exit end trains may enter their respective loops in both directions at the same time without one of them having to wait at its Home Signal until the train it is crossing has come to a stand in its loop.

 

The only element of delay to a crossing situation - effectively non-existent in reality - which remained was Rule 39(a) (1950 Rule Book number but still applicable now, and previously) which meant that a stop signal should not be cleared if the next stop signal immediately in advance of it was at danger until the Signalman is sure that the approaching train has been brought 'quite or nearly' to a stand.  The reality was usually a little different and provided a Signalman could see that the train had reduced speed and would be able to stop then he would clear the signal.  Pulling-off the Home Signal once it was clearly visible to the Driver of an approaching train at a crossing station where the train was booked to stop was usually considered to be perfectly ok and in some cases the Signal Box Special Instructions allowed exemption from Rule 39(a) for trains which were booked to stop/cross.

[Chimer]

You could ease the platform radii another smidge if a train leaving the inner platform went straight at a left-hand point instead of right at a right-hand one - which is much easier drawn than said ...

 

 

Not sure about the facing point leading directly into the headshunt though.  Think the earlier arrangement needing a set back into the yard is more likely, with the bulk of an anti-clockwise freight being left in the platform during shunting ops.

[Jenks465]

58 minutes ago, Chimer said:

Not sure about the facing point leading directly into the headshunt though.  Think the earlier arrangement needing a set back into the yard is more likely, with the bulk of an anti-clockwise freight being left in the platform during shunting ops.

Yeah, this is my feeling also. Think it makes transfering to and from the branch better that way and the passing loop can be longer too.

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, Jenks465 said:

Yeah, this is my feeling also. Think it makes transfering to and from the branch better that way and the passing loop can be longer too.

Yep, the current link is not how we were suggesting above. We were suggesting making the loop longer and trailing into the clockwise, upper side of the loop. That's where the real railway would probably have preferred it to connect, to avoid as many facing points for main line traffic as possible.

 

[Chimer]

If I've got the dimensions right, and interpreted other peoples' comments properly (neither of which I'm sure of), how would this go down?

 

1 foot squares, Peco medium (and one curved) points.  46" and 48" radii through the platforms.  Add goods yard to taste ......

 

[Jenks465]

Thanks, that's brilliant, fits everything I was trying to and flows lovely.

[Zomboid]

I'd bring the branch platform round the corner a bit so it's more parallel to the main line. For access reasons as much as anything else.

[Jenks465]

With massive thanks to Chimer for helping me with his cracking design, is this more like what everyone was thinking? 

 

[AndyB]

Hi

The top right-hand corner is going to be a bit if a stretch? 

 

Baseboard depth is 32". So the corner is (I believe) 45" away if you are standing right in the corner. Plus I guess you'd be leaning downwards, making it even more of a stretch? You may end up damaging some of your scenery trying to, say, reach over to a stalled loco on the headshunt? Not to mention being able to put track and scenery down in that corner to begin with.

 

Might be worth you putting a tape measure between your armpit and fingertips to see what is practicable?

 

Best. Andy 

 

[Satan's Goldfish]

On 24/10/2021 at 19:44, Jenks465 said:

With massive thanks to Chimer for helping me with his cracking design, is this more like what everyone was thinking? 

 

 

Yup, that's it. Looks good.