Single track passing station with branch line junction idea

[The Stationmaster]

Transferring individual coaches, or portions, from one line to another at a junction (or anywhere else come to that) could be carried out as shunting signalled by ground signals although trains starting away from the 'wrong' line would need a running signal.    At a junction like this it would probably be done using ground signals for the exchange of just a single coach or two.

 

Many years ago I rode in a coach which was part of a portion being attached to a train to London at York (bigger station but similar principle).  We joined our 'train' in one of the Scarborough bays at the north end of the station and a J72 station pilot hauled us from the bay clear of the junctions etc then propelled us onto the rear of the train (which had come in from Newcastle) standing in Platform 8 (as it then was) and away we went to London.  All in a day's work on the real railway as it once was.

[Zomboid]

Presumably if loaded coaches are to be taken across, the crossover needs an FPL?

[Jenks465]

After a few tiny changes and further study of @Chimer's excellent plan, I think this is the final version of the layout. I've curved the bay platform so the tracks in the corner are around 5 inches closer for ease of access and I've tried to give more of an impression that the branch line and the main line are diverging from each other which I think flows a lot more nicely too. 

  

[Jenks465]

I'm also pleased to report that I'm now the proud owner of a complete set of boards! 

 

Edited November 2, 2021 by Jenks465
Grammar

[The Stationmaster]

On 02/11/2021 at 11:06, Zomboid said:

Presumably if loaded coaches are to be taken across, the crossover needs an FPL?

The branch line end will have one in any case of course.  Whether or not one is provided on the other end depends on a number of factors because provided the point is detected by a signal an FPL was not essential for a shunting movement of loaded passenger stock.  However if such a movement is carried out on a regular planned (i.e. timetabled) basis then an FPL would be considered necessary to be provided.

 

In any event if there was not an FPL, but signal detection existed, the way some of us were brought up was to make sure that the point was clipped and padlocked whatever the General Appendix might tell us was permissible.

Edited November 3, 2021 by The Stationmaster

[Michael Hodgson]

13 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

In any event if there was not an FPL, but signal detection existed, the way some of us were brought up was to make sure that the point was clipped and padlocked whatever the General Appendix might tell us was permissible.

I hadn't realised it stated otherwise.

[The Stationmaster]

26 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I hadn't realised it stated otherwise.

Like lots of people.  It often seemed to come as a surprise to people that if a normally trailing point was detected by a signal there was no need to clip it if a train conveying passengers was shunted through it in the facing direction provided the point was under the close view of the Signalman and the movement was made at very slow speed. 

 

Page 94 1960 GA; Page 105 1972 GA; Page 1.45 1981 GA (later removed by amendment although i can't date that I'm afraid)

[Jenks465]

While I'm sorting out the track pieces for the scenic sides I decided to have a little play around with some ideas for a fiddle/ storage yard and think something like this looks promising? I'd need to triple my current amount of stock to get close to filling it though! 

Started to think about some scenery too and was wondering about having a level crossing here and using some buildings to hide the entrance to the fiddle yard. Would that work?

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 05/11/2021 at 16:20, Jenks465 said:

While I'm sorting out the track pieces for the scenic sides I decided to have a little play around with some ideas for a fiddle/ storage yard and think something like this looks promising? I'd need to triple my current amount of stock to get close to filling it though! 

Started to think about some scenery too and was wondering about having a level crossing here and using some buildings to hide the entrance to the fiddle yard. Would that work?

 

Looks to be coming along very nicely.  If I might make a couple of suggestions based on the photos:

 

1.  There’s a ‘double S-curve’ from the outermost loop line onto the running line here (presumably to fit Setrack geometry).  Might be worth having a look at, to ‘flip’ the point onto the curve (or used a Streamline Curved point if there’s room).  You may get away with it at slow fiddle yard speeds, but I’d try and avoid it.

 

2.  For the branch line fiddle yard, would it help reduce stock handling to add a run-round loop.

 

 

Just a couple of thoughts.  As for using buildings to hide the fiddle yard entrance, have a play and see what works - the combination of a couple of appropriate buildings and a tall tree or two seems to work well.  Hope that helps, Keith.

Edited April 8, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
(Post edited to text only - I didn’t keep copies of images previously posted)

[Jenks465]

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Looks to be coming along very nicely.  If I might make a couple of suggestions based on the photos:

 

1.  There’s a ‘double S-curve’ from the outermost loop line onto the running line here (presumably to fit Setrack geometry).  Might be worth having a look at, to ‘flip’ the point onto the curve (or used a Streamline Curved point if there’s room).  You may get away with it at slow fiddle yard speeds, but I’d try and avoid it.

 

 

For the branch line fiddle yard, would it help reduce stock handling to add a run-round loop:

 

 

Just a couple of thoughts.  As for using buildings to hide the fiddle yard entrance, have a play and see what works - the combination of a couple of appropriate buildings and a tall tree or two seems to work well.  Hope that helps, Keith.

 

Thanks for the suggestions Keith.

I know the frustration of the second radius reverse curve all too well from my old trainset layout! I found that my locos and bogey coaches dealt with them well (even if they looked very strange!) but propelling wagons through them was a real problem. Flipping the point would be a good solution but unfortunately it's a 4th radius curve there so not sure it'll work?

I agree about the run round loop but funds unfortunately mean that will have to wait until after I've got all the scenic parts together before I can add it.

[Jenks465]

2 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Might be worth having a look at, to ‘flip’ the point onto the curve 

 

Just been thinking about this a bit more and realised it only needs 2 short pieces of flex track to make this work! Thanks for the great idea.

[Jenks465]

Thanks @Keith Addenbrooke this is much better! 

[Chimer]

You could do the same thing at the other end of that loop too .....

[Jenks465]

3 hours ago, Chimer said:

You could do the same thing at the other end of that loop too .....

Thanks, I did but it's a second radius at the far end so it didn't need any flex track to fit.

Had a couple of hours 'testing' today, seems to work really nicely 

[Chimer]

As I can never leave well alone, I've modded my last design to include your fiddle yards, sort of .......

 

Green tracks are set-track points and curves, blue streamline points and flexi (24" radius streamline points in the FY area).

 

The differences are:

a gentler curve bottom right, hence a streamline point where you've used set-track;

sidings instead of loops on the nearside of the main line FY (I thought the loops too short to be useful;

different arrangement of the curves top left, and therefore position of branch FY.

 

The scenic treatment I offer for consideration is a road bridge providing the scenic break bottom right, and high ground with tunnels top left.  

 

I'm not I'd bother with the run-round I've shown in the branch FY, again because of the shortness of the loop.  Easier to use a locolift to shift an engine from one end to the other, I reckon.

 

Only thinking aloud, you're doing just fine by yourself!!

 

Cheers, Chris

 

[Jenks465]

1 hour ago, Chimer said:

As I can never leave well alone, I've modded my last design to include your fiddle yards, sort of .......

 

Green tracks are set-track points and curves, blue streamline points and flexi (24" radius streamline points in the FY area).

 

The differences are:

a gentler curve bottom right, hence a streamline point where you've used set-track;

sidings instead of loops on the nearside of the main line FY (I thought the loops too short to be useful;

different arrangement of the curves top left, and therefore position of branch FY.

 

The scenic treatment I offer for consideration is a road bridge providing the scenic break bottom right, and high ground with tunnels top left.  

 

I'm not I'd bother with the run-round I've shown in the branch FY, again because of the shortness of the loop.  Easier to use a locolift to shift an engine from one end to the other, I reckon.

 

Only thinking aloud, you're doing just fine by yourself!!

 

Cheers, Chris

 

Thanks Chris, I definitely like the fact that there's more room for the scenic area on your plan. If the left end of the passing loop could be moved further to the left it could make the inside platform and the goods yard a bit longer perhaps?

[Harlequin]

I think the top left corner is being adversely affected by trying to make the main line and branch line diverge significantly before they leave the scene.

 

If they were allowed to be closer that whole area would flow more naturally and I think that would help the inner platform be longer, the engine shed spur be longer and the outer platform have a more clear triangular shape. (Yes, that again! )

 

You don't need a big divergence, just enough to show that it's not double track leaving the scene and because the branch line has it's own FY, it is operationally separate so no fake/wrong/artificial movements would be possible (unless you moved things by hand in the FY and that would be insane, right?).

 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Harlequin

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Just my 2p worth. I like the idea of the straight and curving platforms, but I'd be inclined the get rid of that second (sharply curved inner) platform. Just feels like there's too much platform to me.

[KingEdwardII]

36 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

I'd be inclined the get rid of that second (sharply curved inner) platform.

The trouble with doing that is that it takes the design away from a typical junction station. Two platforms was not enough for such stations - take Dulverton as an example, or Bewdley.

 

Yours,  Mike.

[Chimer]

11 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I think the top left corner is being adversely affected by trying to make the main line and branch line diverge significantly before they leave the scene.

 

If they were allowed to be closer that whole area would flow more naturally and I think that would help the inner platform be longer, the engine shed spur be longer and the outer platform have a more clear triangular shape. (Yes, that again! )

 

You don't need a big divergence, just enough to show that it's not double track leaving the scene and because the branch line has it's own FY, it is operationally separate so you'd know that any train going down it has to come back the same way.

 

 

One good reason for the divergence (I think) is that it enables a good chunk of the 90 degree curve that gets the main line round in the top left corner to be (a) gentle and (b) visible.  Obviously (?!) the the branch line curve has to be totally hidden which probably means a tunnel which means a hill which probably means a tunnel on the main too - if the two lines are close together, the tunnel mouths will need to be close together which will lose a lot of the main line curve from view.

 

I'm sure there are other scenic approaches which could work, like hiding the branch behind buildings, but some countryside in that corner seemed appealing ....

 

And yes, the pointwork at the left-hand end of the loop can and probably should be moved left and up a bit - about a foot should do it, and also yes, I'd take the curve out of the branch platform, I only put it in because someone suggested it and there seemed to be general agreement (apart from Phil!).

 

The inner platform radius is 46" and it will take a 5 coach train.

 

Cheers, Chris

[Harlequin]

25 minutes ago, Chimer said:

 

One good reason for the divergence (I think) is that it enables a good chunk of the 90 degree curve that gets the main line round in the top left corner to be (a) gentle and (b) visible.  Obviously (?!) the the branch line curve has to be totally hidden which probably means a tunnel which means a hill which probably means a tunnel on the main too - if the two lines are close together, the tunnel mouths will need to be close together which will lose a lot of the main line curve from view.

 

I'm sure there are other scenic approaches which could work, like hiding the branch behind buildings, but some countryside in that corner seemed appealing ....

 

And yes, the pointwork at the left-hand end of the loop can and probably should be moved left and up a bit - about a foot should do it, and also yes, I'd take the curve out of the branch platform, I only put it in because someone suggested it and there seemed to be general agreement (apart from Phil!).

 

The inner platform radius is 46" and it will take a 5 coach train.

 

Cheers, Chris

 

Rather than changing the main line very much I was thinking that the branch line could possibly also be (a) gentle and (b) visible...?

 

[Chimer]

Yes, on reflection I think this flows better altogether .....

 

[Jenks465]

32 minutes ago, Chimer said:

Yes, on reflection I think this flows better altogether .....

 

Not too far away from the rough mock up I was messing around with just now......

 

[Satan's Goldfish]

Looking at the pictures of the stock you have, is it worth leaving scope for the 'mainline' to be double track in future? Would probably just mean making the points at each end of the platforms loop a trailing crossover instead.

[Jenks465]

32 minutes ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

Looking at the pictures of the stock you have, is it worth leaving scope for the 'mainline' to be double track in future? Would probably just mean making the points at each end of the platforms loop a trailing crossover instead.

The Railroad Tornado and Pullman's are the longest items of stock that I own so I've been using them to test the clearances on the curves and points because I figure if they get through fine then everything else should too? 

The initial idea was that it was going to be a passing station on the Bristol and North Somerset line, hence single track, with a junction to a popular resort similar to somewhere like St Ives that would justify a train similar to the Cambrian coast express but it's all gotten out of hand!