Glasgow Muir Street - N Gauge Code 40 - 8m room - 1962-1964.

[scottystitch]

Glasgow Muir Street assumes the Caledonian's Glasgow Buchanan Street was never built, a station instead being built on the South side of the Clyde, adjacent WCML.

 

Five terminus platform faces serve trains Northward to Stirling, Callander (for Oban), Perth, Dundee Aberdeen and Inverness, whilst two through platforms see Anglo-Scottish trains to and from Central along with some outer suburban services. This line also see block freight trains to and from Glasgow Marshalling yards and industry.

 

A - Glasgow Central and Marshalling yards/Industry

B - Stirling, Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen, Inverness; The South, London.

 

Green tracks indicate the UP Main and Relief lines and Yellow the DOWN Main and Relief lines

 

A surface built goods shed dominates the south side of the site.  Goods sheds/warehouses exist below, but these are now out of use and the hydraulic wagon lifts that previously served them sit out of use.  Extant goods facilities are served  by trip workings from nearby goods yards, mainly general merchandise, fresh fruit, vegetables and fish.

 

An engine shed and a carriage facilities exist off scene to the right for working the ex-Caledonian trains North.

 

The whole sits on a stone or brick arched viaduct.

 

Track is code 40 British Finescale. 

 

Each grid is 150mm (the allowance for a MK1 coach).

 

 

[woodenhead]

You've no headshunt that doesn't foul the passenger arrivals to any of platforms 1-5 during shunt moves.

[scottystitch]

9 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

You've no headshunt that doesn't foul the passenger arrivals to any of platforms 1-5 during shunt moves.

That's correct.

 

From what I can see, neither did the original (Moor Street).

 

EDIT: For that matter, neither did Buchanan Street, the ECS being pulled onto the main before reversing into the carriage sidings.

 

Best

 

Scott.

 

Great Western Railway, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Edited October 27, 2021 by scottystitch
Additional info.

[RobinofLoxley]

Given the 8M room, does this mean that the layout extends to the right beyond 'B' or even completes a circuit coming back to 'A' again?

 

Given the comprehensive 3 platform plus goods historic plan, why did you decide to increase the platforms to 5?

[scottystitch]

23 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Given the 8M room, does this mean that the layout extends to the right beyond 'B' or even completes a circuit coming back to 'A' again?

It does. But in what form is still open to development.  The current sketch has the lines from B leading to a Helix down to a sub level where there is a long scenic run (Glasgow Muir Street 4, below). It would then lead to a storage  yard for Inverness, Aberdeen and Dundee below GMS).

 

The lines from A would rise slightly to a storage yard for Glasgow Central and the Marshalling yards/industry above the scenic section.

 

 

23 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Given the comprehensive 3 platform plus goods historic plan, why did you decide to increase the platforms to 5?

 

Because that is what Buchanan Street used to serve the Caledonian-North-of-Glasgow trains, which Muir Street has taken the place of in this scenario.  I could have modelled Buchanan Street, but being a terminus, it wouldn't allow for the long block freight train workings trundling by that I wanted. I also wanted to model accurate formations of the three daily Euston/Glasgow expresses (Caledonian, Royal Scot and Mid-Day Scot) and the Night Limited.

 

Moor street looked perfect and seemed quite simple to adapt for Glasgow, especially on south side viaducts.  It is all rather contrived, but it sits okay with me.

 

The track plan, follows Moor Street pretty accurately which to my mind makes it all quite plausible (if we ignore the contrived premise of why it's there).

 

Best

Scott.

Edited October 28, 2021 by scottystitch

[Joseph_Pestell]

Perhaps the uncertainties about this plan stem from the fact that Moor St was designed for suburban traffic, with a loco rapidly coming onto the country end of a train for it to depart without any servicing. Muir St is serving a different sort of traffic, long-distance needing the train to be serviced at carriage sidings.

 

It is difficult to combine the terminus element with the desire for a continuous run for the freight. Perhaps best to separate them altogether. There was indeed a freight link across Glasgow branching off at St Enoch.

 

Also worth taking a look at the post-war plans for Glasgow North, a station on the site of Buchanan St but designed to also take the ex-NBR traffic into Queen St.

[scottystitch]

5 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Perhaps the uncertainties about this plan stem from the fact that Moor St was designed for suburban traffic, with a loco rapidly coming onto the country end of a train for it to depart without any servicing. Muir St is serving a different sort of traffic, long-distance needing the train to be serviced at carriage sidings.

Indeed, you are correct.  That said

5 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

It is difficult to combine the terminus element with the desire for a continuous run for the freight. Perhaps best to separate them altogether. There was indeed a freight link across Glasgow branching off at St Enoch.

 

Also worth taking a look at the post-war plans for Glasgow North, a station on the site of Buchanan St but designed to also take the ex-NBR traffic into Queen St.

I have previously looked at Glasgow North, and drawn it in AnyRail, but again the exclusive terminus nature of it was too much of a red cross rather than green tick so I moved on from it.  I also redesigned Buchanan Street with a through line that dropped under ground (to tie in with the sub surface line that passes under Queen Street at present), the same as happened at Dundee East, but I just couldn't get it to work for me without becoming too complex. 

 

I do appreciate your misgivings, and thank you for airing them, but Muir Street feels fine for me.  That said, it may be that the goods facility is removed in favour of carriage sidings, as per Buchanan Street.   We shall see.  Buchanan Street in the sixties was not a very busy place in the grand scheme of things, and at least one pair of tracks had an elevated walkway between them with servicing facilities (water replenishment for toilet header tanks, etc.) to remove the need for the stock to be relocated between services.

 

Best

 

Scott.

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 minute ago, scottystitch said:

Indeed, you are correct.  That said

I have previously looked at Glasgow North, and drawn it in AnyRail, but again the exclusive terminus nature of it was too much of a red cross rather than green tick so I moved on from it.  I also redesigned Buchanan Street with a through line that dropped under ground (to tie in with the sub surface line that passes under Queen Street at present), the same as happened at Dundee East, but I just couldn't get it to work for me without becoming too complex. 

 

I do appreciate your misgivings, and thank you for airing them, but Muir Street feels fine for me.  That said, it may be that the goods facility is removed in favour of carriage sidings, as per Buchanan Street.   We shall see.  Buchanan Street in the sixties was not a very busy place in the grand scheme of things, and at least one pair of tracks had an elevated walkway between them with servicing facilities (water replenishment for toilet header tanks, etc.) to remove the need for the stock to be relocated between services.

 

Best

 

Scott.

 

Hi Scott,

Glasgow North is interesting as a concept but probably not too interesting as a model. It could be redesigned to be a bit smaller and more interesting to operate.

Buchanan St and Glasgow North both had some freight facilities. But I agree that the placing of the warehouse on your plan could be a problem.

Is the centre of this space available to you? A terminus down the centre of the room, similar to Clive's Sheffield Exchange, would get you round the problem.

[scottystitch]

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Hi Scott,

Is the centre of this space available to you? A terminus down the centre of the room, similar to Clive's Sheffield Exchange, would get you round the problem.

The room doesn't exist at present, but it is projected to be a 8m by 4m outbuilding, purpose built for the railway.

 

On your prompting, I looked closer at Clive's thread and see page 19 has the concept  for his layout.  I hadn't considered a terminus through the centre for a number of reasons, but perhaps it deserves closer scrutiny.

 

Supposing we go down that route, how would you propose we tackle the inclusion of Euston/London and through freight traffic into the layout, without the two requirements being effectively isolated layouts?

 

I am against continuous run in the sense of roundy-roundy, preferring storage yard to storage yard, albeit with return loops in them where appropriate.

 

Best

 

Scott.

[RobinofLoxley]

Another thing that puzzles me a bit about the original proposal is that the exit from the goods yard uses one of the two parallel tracks from the passenger platforms, which wasnt the case in the original Moor St drawings and would be unlikely to be the case anywhere if its a real railway representation. Its fixable, and you have the space.

[scottystitch]

17 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Another thing that puzzles me a bit about the original proposal is that the exit from the goods yard uses one of the two parallel tracks from the passenger platforms, which wasnt the case in the original Moor St drawings and would be unlikely to be the case anywhere if its a real railway representation. Its fixable, and you have the space.

Yes I realised that this morning, funnily enough...

[Joseph_Pestell]

2 hours ago, scottystitch said:

The room doesn't exist at present, but it is projected to be a 8m by 4m outbuilding, purpose built for the railway.

 

On your prompting, I looked closer at Clive's thread and see page 19 has the concept  for his layout.  I hadn't considered a terminus through the centre for a number of reasons, but perhaps it deserves closer scrutiny.

 

Supposing we go down that route, how would you propose we tackle the inclusion of Euston/London and through freight traffic into the layout, without the two requirements being effectively isolated layouts?

 

I am against continuous run in the sense of roundy-roundy, preferring storage yard to storage yard, albeit with return loops in them where appropriate.

 

Best

 

Scott.

 

With that space to play with, all options are possible. And plenty of space for storage yards.

 

I would stick with the broad outline of Clive's layout (storage yard to storage yard) but have a four-track section on the "roundy-roundy". 

 

An alternative to the peninsular terminus is two termini back-to-back - simplifies the electrickery. 

 

[Steven B]

On 28/10/2021 at 10:53, Joseph_Pestell said:

It is difficult to combine the terminus element with the desire for a continuous run for the freight. Perhaps best to separate them altogether. There was indeed a freight link across Glasgow branching off at St Enoch.

 

Have a look at Manchester Piccadilly & Manchester Victoria for inspiration. Both stations combine terminus platforms with through running. Piccadilly had the neighbouring Mayfield - initially built as an over flow but later used as a goods station.

 

Steven B.

 

[pH]

On 28/10/2021 at 02:53, Joseph_Pestell said:

There was indeed a freight link across Glasgow branching off at St Enoch.

Also used initially for passengers - services from G&SW stations on the south side of Glasgow to NBR stations such as Springburn and Bridgeton Central. After those stopped, still used occasionally by e.g. Springburn-Ibrox football specials. And Starlight Specials could run that way out of St Enoch’s to serve Glasgow and Edinburgh with the same train. 

[scottystitch]

On 28/10/2021 at 15:12, RobinofLoxley said:

Another thing that puzzles me a bit about the original proposal is that the exit from the goods yard uses one of the two parallel tracks from the passenger platforms, which wasnt the case in the original Moor St drawings and would be unlikely to be the case anywhere if its a real railway representation. Its fixable, and you have the space.

[Harlequin]

Remember to leave room for some scenery behind the stations and trackwork in general. With N gauge you've got room to place the railway in the landscape and it would be a shame to have to employ the usual tricks to disguise a backscene right behind the railway. (Maybe think more like Copenhagen Fields! )

 

Could the space be used better?

 

Although the gradient of a helix can be more forgiving in 2mm than 4mm scales, it's still a very complex bit of infrastructure and trains will take significant time to ascend and descend. Will covered fiddle/storage yards become an annoyance in the long run? Might it be better to avoid the helix and have the fiddle yards on the same level in the room but hidden away behind scenery with their own operating well?

 

[scottystitch]

49 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Remember to leave room for some scenery behind the stations and trackwork in general. With N gauge you've got room to place the railway in the landscape and it would be a shame to have to employ the usual tricks to disguise a backscene right behind the railway. (Maybe think more like Copenhagen Fields! )

 

Indeed, all part of the long term plan (whatever layout I actually end up with), with full relief buildings in front of and behind the viaduct and full relief station buildings.  This however serves more as a sketch than anything else.

 

49 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Although the gradient of a helix can be more forgiving in 2mm than 4mm scales, it's still a very complex bit of infrastructure and trains will take significant time to ascend and descend.

 

The helix serves two purposes: the first is to change the elevation and the second is to induce a time delay between the train exiting a scene and entering the next.  I don't want a train to leave a bustling urban railway, turn a corner and suddenly be seen in the middle of the countryside.  My mind doesn't like that.

 

49 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Will covered fiddle/storage yards become an annoyance in the long run? Might it be better to avoid the helix and have the fiddle yards on the same level in the room but hidden away behind scenery with their own operating well?

 

 

I don't think so.  I previously built a garage layout (without any scenery) with the storage yard 12 inches below the station board, which fed an ovoid 1% helix.  It worked very well before a house move precluded further development.  Being able to take a step back, look down and see the train you want move immediately, without having to look behind a scenic section works pretty well for me.   Likewise, being able to simply turn around from Muir Street and see the 2nd storage yard on a similar level to check the train wanted is moving.  The arrangement means there is a distinctly different scenic section on each of the two long walls, with one of them truly being in "in the landscape" along with two distinct "opposite ends of the world" storage yards which aren't constrained for space.  Again, this separation of the storage yards is better for the way my mind behaves.  

 

I didn't find the helix particularly complex to build nor operate once the maths had been done.  I used identical thickness blocks to support each level on top of the previous one, rather than threaded rod which I find unnecessary if you do the calculations correctly at the start, and make sure the base level is...level.

 

The yards will be largely storage in nature rather than fiddle.  Train rakes will be fixed and any locomotive changes will be done on the rails, rather than by hand of god.  12" in N gauge is ample for clearance (I have found).

 

I have explored Joseph_Pestel's suggestion of a central terminus, but I don't think I like that either.  I've had a similar set up before, but the room felt cluttered and the inability to get to all four walls without walking around a peninsular wasn't for me.

 

All good suggestions and questions, though, so much appreciated.

 

Best

 

Scott.

[RobinofLoxley]

3 hours ago, scottystitch said:

More important was that extra bit of red coloured line, but I dont think you are quite there yet Scotty. The double slip gives access to the headshunt from the station roads but incoming passenger trains for P4 and P5 will still cross onto the goods line. The Moor street original shows three 'junctions' from the relief lines into the passenger terminus - I think you need to put the third one between the existing two at the yellow-black join, with a third point on the ?green ?down relief.

[scottystitch]

4 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

More important was that extra bit of red coloured line, but I dont think you are quite there yet Scotty. The double slip gives access to the headshunt from the station roads but incoming passenger trains for P4 and P5 will still cross onto the goods line. The Moor street original shows three 'junctions' from the relief lines into the passenger terminus - I think you need to put the third one between the existing two at the yellow-black join, with a third point on the ?green ?down relief.

 

 

I'm not sure what I'm missing?  Arriving trains off of the yellow line can access platforms 1-5 through the double slip:

 

 

Best

 

Scott.

[RobinofLoxley]

I'm not sure what I'm missing?  Arriving trains off of the yellow line can access platforms 1-5 through the double slip: Thats correct, but

 

If you want to run some freight out of the yard, you cant do it - (unless I have misunderstood your plan, always possible) - without using the passenger lines, which I believe was frowned upon.

 

I realise I have failed to count the tracks properly as the Moor St plan has six to the right, as does yours; however you have a goods loop at the top instead of where it is on Moor St, below the relief lines. So actually you should need another track between the down relief and the headshunt line to carry the freight away from the yard without using the passenger line. Beyond that I'm not sure what would happen. Im not sure why you need that that goods loop where it is.

 

I imagine that away from the Moor St diagram to the right, the relief tracks rejoin the main lines leaving the freight line to carry on; its shown as an up line only, so I suspect the down freight is created from a continuation of the up relief line.

 

R.

[scottystitch]

7 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

I'm not sure what I'm missing?  Arriving trains off of the yellow line can access platforms 1-5 through the double slip: Thats correct, but

 

If you want to run some freight out of the yard, you cant do it - (unless I have misunderstood your plan, always possible) - without using the passenger lines, which I believe was frowned upon.

 

I realise I have failed to count the tracks properly as the Moor St plan has six to the right, as does yours; however you have a goods loop at the top instead of where it is on Moor St, below the relief lines. So actually you should need another track between the down relief and the headshunt line to carry the freight away from the yard without using the passenger line. Beyond that I'm not sure what would happen. Im not sure why you need that that goods loop where it is.

 

I imagine that away from the Moor St diagram to the right, the relief tracks rejoin the main lines leaving the freight line to carry on; its shown as an up line only, so I suspect the down freight is created from a continuation of the up relief line.

 

R.

 

Okay I see where you are coming from now.  And yes, perhaps I snipped the image a bit too closely and that added to the confusion.

 

You are right about goods trains leaving the site onto passenger lines, but I think there must be plenty examples of that.  In any case all traffic must exit onto the slow lines, rather than the main.  It's all academic perhaps, because I have sketched in carriage sidings in place of the goods yard now and that feels better.

 

The goods loop off the up main is my contrivance to have freight trains looped to allow faster trains and still allow access to and from Muir Street terminus platforms.  I wanted to be able to have a long freight standing on scene for a bit.  It may all be a contrivance too far, however.

 

Best

 

Scott.

[5BarVT]

FYI, Moor St originally had double crossovers from your Slow to Main so trains could use either set of lines.  They were removed sometime during the 50s I think.

Paul.