Jump to content
 

Theory of General Minories


Mike W2
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

OK, shown like that it makes more sense and I think it may have been me that posted it- though not that actual drawing- as it's essentially the theoretical track plan for an idealised commuter terminus that The CF de l'Est's traffic engineers included in a 1931 paper describing how they got 20-25% more rush hours trains in and out of Bastille within its existing (and very tight) enveope during the roaring twenties.

849918459_GaredeBanlieueprojetidal.jpg.c2fa9cb35b67d4f75b7cc569d507a29d.jpg

 

That would work for MUs or push pull trains but their projected plan for the six suburban platforms of the Gare de l'Est added a third track for the "evolutions" of engines getting from trains they'd brought in (usually after these had departed behind another loco) to the next train they were taking out. 

1182047639_GaredeParisEstProjettype.jpg.629471648e21061808df30619bd3cd86.jpg

I don't  know whether Gare de l'Est was ever rationalised exactly like this but they put a lot of work into establishing the theory of how such a terminus could be optimised (a lot of that down to the "flighting" of trains to their various destinations down the line. 

 

 

Here's one I prepared earlier, with two tracks for arriving trains and two for departures, all with a minimum of conflicting paths.

 

image.png.7c2dfb025a24cd42b4024b279061e050.png

  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 27/08/2021 at 23:53, t-b-g said:

I took an overhead view of the pointwork at the Buckingham throat as I still look at it and can't easily see how it was done. Even though I have operated it for 10 years now, I am still amazed at the design and the complexity and how a throat for such a station could be done in around 24" length.

 

 

It looks doable if you accept very short prototype turnouts. For example this is a very ordinary 9ft switch and 1:5 RAM generic V-crossing:

 

buckingham_throat_em.jpg.a2eeb2b75c479874779950b72ed2f32f.jpg

 

That's using 18.2mm EM (I believe Buckingham is 18.0mm).

 

I will have a go at doing the rest of it. I may be gone a little while. :)

 

Martin.

  • Like 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
14 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

It looks doable if you accept very short prototype turnouts. For example this is a very ordinary 9ft switch and 1:5 RAM generic V-crossing:

 

buckingham_throat_em.jpg.a2eeb2b75c479874779950b72ed2f32f.jpg

 

That's using 18.2mm EM (I believe Buckingham is 18.0mm).

 

I will have a go at doing the rest of it. I may be gone a little while. :)

 

Martin.

 

Good luck Martin! I wouldn't worry about the goods yard points below the station throat, that are pretty tame and conventional compared to the scissors crossing.

 

Buckingham has a variable gauge. I have measured a minimum of 17.5mm and a maximum of 19.5mm. The theoretical gauge as described by Peter Denny was 18 and a bit mm. He found that Romford wheels were tight between the rails on small radius curves so he made the gauge "a bit wider". Later he said that it was "about 18.25mm".

 

The check rail gap was a bit variable too. I think he tried various wheels through the points and put the check rails wherever he got the fewest problems. I have just measured a few at either a tight or a loose fit on my 1.2mm check gauge which I use for OO. It is a bit much to ask for you to do some at 1.1mm and some at 1.3mm!

 

When I build trackwork, I spend a lot of time and effort getting consistent gauge and gaps, so when I see just how much the Buckingham track varies and then see how well it runs, I scratch my head and wonder how he got away with it. Mostly through good alignments and having a great "feel" for what will work and what won't is my usual answer to myself.

 

The biggest problem you will have will be to fit the checkrails correctly in the centre of the scissors crossing. I just don't think they can be done correctly.

 

I am delighted that you are having a go at it. If anybody can do it, then you are the right man for the job!

 

Thanks

 

Tony G

  • Like 4
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

Buckingham has a variable gauge. I have measured a minimum of 17.5mm and a maximum of 19.5mm. The theoretical gauge as described by Peter Denny was 18 and a bit mm. He found that Romford wheels were tight between the rails on small radius curves so he made the gauge "a bit wider". Later he said that it was "about 18.25mm".

 

The check rail gap was a bit variable too. I think he tried various wheels through the points and put the check rails wherever he got the fewest problems. I have just measured a few at either a tight or a loose fit on my 1.2mm check gauge which I use for OO. It is a bit much to ask for you to do some at 1.1mm and some at 1.3mm!

 

When I build trackwork, I spend a lot of time and effort getting consistent gauge and gaps, so when I see just how much the Buckingham track varies and then see how well it runs, I scratch my head and wonder how he got away with it. Mostly through good alignments and having a great "feel" for what will work and what won't is my usual answer to myself.

 

But isn't that the beauty of what he created, he did what the real engineers did - built the track and stock so it all worked together.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

But isn't that the beauty of what he created, he did what the real engineers did - built the track and stock so it all worked together.

 

Very much so. Apart from the variations in the track there are wheel standards from 75 year old steam rollers through to modern types. Getting that to all run as well as it did was a great work of real skill and ability. There are a few vehicles which tend to derail on certain bits of track but the timetable is carefully designed to keep them apart.

 

I can't claim perfect running but it is at least as good as the vast majority of layouts and any problems are down to things like wheels slopping about in very worn bearings, sprung buffers going stiff with age or ancient sprung suspension wires getting tired rather than any problem with design or build quality.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Here's one I prepared earlier, with two tracks for arriving trains and two for departures, all with a minimum of conflicting paths.

 

image.png.7c2dfb025a24cd42b4024b279061e050.png

Good one Keith. Why am I thinking of Kings Cross?

In practice I think you'd have a certain number of  predominately suburban platforms largely feeding the slow lines with the long distance expresses using the fast lines. However, you'd still want every platform able to access all four running lines. Also, how much of a thing were separate dedicated parcels platforms at termini ?   There was that curious extension to platform one at Paddington with AFAIR it's own track that I think had been postal, but I lived close to Paddington in the 1970s and used to go there late at night to buy tomorrow's newspapers today and the parcels and newspaper trains simply used a couple of the ordinary platforms once passenger services had thinned out. One of the two downside bay platforms at Oxford was mostly used by parcels vans (that area was our favourite for train watching) though I thnk the Varsity line DMUs (horrid smelly two car units) used it as well. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

For comparison, below  is the actual layout of pointwork in the real Bastille terminus (though drawn with medium radius points so not to scale) with five platform roads, a releasing road above platform 1 (accessed at the buffer end by a traverser) and a three road loco shed.

They did use one single slip at the end of the throat  just to get the geometry right to enter the viaduct but, with a terminus that was going to be so intensively used they clearly wanted to stick to simple pointwork as you can see what any points failure would do to operations.

 

24794683_Bastilleprototype1950sthroatonly.jpg.d56c1d88fa96e721dcf784cdbf4ae3b3.jpg

 

For as  intensive a rush hour suburban service as possible, trains departed from each platform in turn from five to one so that new trains could arrive to replace them one by one so, very soon after the last train had departed from platform one, the enxt cycle of departures could begin in what was actually a very repetitive process.  All complicated of course by getting engines from arriving trains onto the other end  of other trains for departure.  

 

Sorting out the trackplan was only half the story, just as if not more important was rationalsing the rush hour timetable.

To complete the story, this pull together of the weekday (Mon-Sat) evening rush hour timetable on the Ligne de Vincennes from 1930 shows fairly clearly how it worked. The Bastille terminus was normally dedicated to this one 66km long line so its nearest British equivalent would probably be Fenchurch Street which has four platforms though I don't think the LT&SR was ever quite this intensively worked in the rush hours. 

2001668362_Chaix-Est1930EteParis-VerneuilsemainerushhourA.jpg.621cbdd2661d3b6097de3183e5f8c066.jpg

I've marked the start and end of each cycle with vertical lines above the timetable.

The evening started getting busier from about 17.17 but the real intensity began at 17.49 with three trains departing in quick succession. After that the cycle got into its stride with five train departing from platforms 5 to 1 in turn at 2 minute intevals, followed by  a ten minute gap and then the next cycle. One train was missed from the fourth cycle - the one that stated at 1906 and the intense operation ends with three trains departing at two minute intervals from 19:47, after that there was one train ten minutes late then just an hourly or less service til the last train after midnight. The commuter service really ended at Boissy-St. Leger after which the line was single track and rural and closed to passengers beyond Brie-Comte-Robert in 1947 and beyond Boissy-St. Leger in 1953 . from the end of 1970 most of the line to Boissy-St-Leger was incorporated into RER A and Bastille terminus and a couple of other stations closed.

   

It should be clear how running trains for different groups of stations in an appropriate order enabled them to depart at very short intervals but to separate out down the line. The repetitive sequence  also meant that passengers for a particular station would know which platform or platforms their trains would run from so wouldn't  mill around on the fairly limited concourse waiting for destination boards and getting in each others' way.

 

I think that operating this as an exhibition layout to its proper rush hour timetable would be a real exercise in masochism  and you probably wouldn't want a speeded up clock! .

 

After 1930 the fnancial crash and competition from the Meto and buses meant that services were never this busy again. 

  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine the reality of Bastille was that the morning/ arrivals would have been more intense and chaotic, with the potential for trains to get held up on their way in. I suppose it would be unlikely that they'd arrive out of order with the lack of junctions on the line, but they could still arrive with the wrong spacing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

I think that operating this as an exhibition layout to its proper rush hour timetable would be a real exercise in masochism

That would be a case where either semi or full automation with computer control would probably be a good idea. The sheer number of train movements involved would be a hard task even if there were multiple human operators.

 

Yours,  Mike.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:

That would be a case where either semi or full automation with computer control would probably be a good idea. The sheer number of train movements involved would be a hard task even if there were multiple human operators.

 

Yours,  Mike.

The problem is what you would have at the opposite end. The only solution I can see is a loop with a lot of double length sidings, so it would be 3-4 times the size of the station terminus area

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s the sort of place where the real imperative (do as little as possible with each train, so that you can turn it round as quickly as possible) collides head-on with model railway imperative (do as much faffing about with each train as possible, because it’s interesting) IMO. 
 

Too much like work!

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Zomboid said:

I imagine the reality of Bastille was that the morning/ arrivals would have been more intense and chaotic, with the potential for trains to get held up on their way in. I suppose it would be unlikely that they'd arrive out of order with the lack of junctions on the line, but they could still arrive with the wrong spacing.

Hi Zomboid. 

No. although a similar process of "flighting" trains was used,  the morning peak was far less intense. The evening rush was over a  period of less than two  hours whereas the morning peak lasted for over three hours with trains generally arriving at between three and seven minute intervals. That would have allowed more wriggle room for arrival times though,  every arrival would still have had to be balanced with a departure. Most of these were VV (Voitures Vide i.e. ECS) as there were no carriage sidings at Bastille so eveerything had to use the two track viaduct in both direction. Presumably, most workers  knocked off work at about 5.30 - 6.30  PM and rushed for the trains but starting times were more variable. There was a sub-depot at Bastille with a shed for six locos, coaling stage etc. so, if an arriving  loco had problems, they'd have been able to substitute it and all the locos were the same  powerful 131TB Prairies specially built for the service as part of the rationalisation  (the Mikado tanks seen in most photos of  Bastille were push-pull fitted locos cascaded with their trains from Gare de l'Est in the final six or seven years before it closed in December 1969)   

The whole thing must have needed to run like a Swiss watch but one reason for the rationalisation in the mid 1920s was that delays were getting far too common. 

The Est used several tricks to speed up the turnrounds such as fitting water columns at the terminus end of the platforms as well as at the approach end so an arriving loco could fill up while waiting for the train it had brought in to depart behind another loco. That way it could depart almost as soon as it had coupled on to its next departure. They also fited semi-automatic mechanical signals on the viaduct to reduce the section lengths. 

 

 

1774121605_Chaix-Est1930EteVerneuil-Bastillesemaineanalysis.jpg.4f41c8253dc55e7e5e004037732b8845.jpg

 

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

before it closed in December 1969

Hmm, the replacement of these services with the electric traction RER and the replacement of terminus stations with through routes from one side of Paris to the other makes plenty of sense in getting away from the crazy busy-ness of a terminus like Bastille. But you get the dizzying complexity of an interchange like "Les Halles" instead!

 

Something that we're only just starting to get to grips with in terminus-dominated London - the ill-fated Crossrail being the first attempt! :wacko:  Although I suppose the through north-south services via Blackfriars are an older equivalent.

 

A place like Waterloo is somewhat frustrating in that you have to get off your train, catch one or two tube trains and then catch another train on the other side of central London, assuming central London ain't your destination...

 

Yours,  Mike.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:

Hmm, the replacement of these services with the electric traction RER and the replacement of terminus stations with through routes from one side of Paris to the other makes plenty of sense in getting away from the crazy busy-ness of a terminus like Bastille. But you get the dizzying complexity of an interchange like "Les Halles" instead!

 

Something that we're only just starting to get to grips with in terminus-dominated London - the ill-fated Crossrail being the first attempt! :wacko:  Although I suppose the through north-south services via Blackfriars are an older equivalent.

 

A place like Waterloo is somewhat frustrating in that you have to get off your train, catch one or two tube trains and then catch another train on the other side of central London, assuming central London ain't your destination...

 

Yours,  Mike.

Paris was also a city where the termini were confined to a ring around the city and not permitted into the centre with similar results. To get from say London to Bordeaux you have to get from Gare du Nord to Montparnasse on Métro 4 followed by a long walk or travolator ride as, when they moved Montparnasse further out,  the Metro still went to its previous location. At least in London the main line termini, apart from Waterloo and the terminal side of London Bridge, are on or near the Circle Line - if you have time to spare!  

One reason why the Paris Métro  runs on the right when trains in France normally run on the left (except in Alsace-Lorraine) was that the city authorities were determined that it shouldn't be a trojan horse allowing the main lines to infiltrate the city centre. 

 

I'm trying to think what other cities were like that. Moscow of course and to some extent Chicago but were there others?  

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I'm trying to think what other cities were like that. Moscow of course and to some extent Chicago but were there others?  

To a smaller extent, but still the same problem:

Glasgow: 4 stations, now 2

Manchester: up to 4! (Piccadilly, Exchange and Victoria all had through platforms.)

Liverpool: 3 stations only 1 terminus left.

Paul.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Paris was also a city where the termini were confined to a ring

Yes, indeed. The RER was an approach to getting away from the termini as far as the busy suburban routes are concerned. A definite improvement.

 

The metro in Paris, like the Tube in London, is really a second best way of getting between the major stations.

15 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

apart from Waterloo and the terminal side of London Bridge, are on or near the Circle Line

Yes, only the major stations for the south! :( 

 

I have found it really frustrating over many years connecting from a Winchester train to the Eurostar - made far worse when you have luggage...

The stupid thing there is that there is indeed a direct line from Clapham Junction to Kings Cross/St Pancras - just that the system is stuck in Victorian times and there are no passenger trains for this route.

 

Yours,  Mike.

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 29/08/2021 at 22:19, t-b-g said:

 

Good luck Martin! I wouldn't worry about the goods yard points below the station throat, that are pretty tame and conventional compared to the scissors crossing.

 

 

Hi Tony,

 

Here you go. I haven't gone beyond the limits of the photo because I don't know what's there.

 

buckingham_throat_em.jpg.98db82c5f8f2af52a97d706a2afe5f0e.jpg

 

The grid lines are 1ft apart:

 

buckingham_throat_em1.jpg.38314763083f025afe1c966fa680b9e7.jpg

 

buckingham_throat_em2.jpg.dcd456b5dc286579140a676de6820aa9.jpg

 

buckingham_throat_em3.jpg.182afb420924969815a7be76350454a7.jpg

 

It seems to be doable in EM, all using short prototype straight switches. The checking is a bit tight in places, but just about works. The tandem relies on the V-crossings checking each other, which is normally only done in yards.

 

I haven't done the timbering because it's a tedious task and as far as I know no-one is actually planning to build this. The tandem is a bit of a mess and if anyone is intending to build it the approach track would be worth re-aligning.

 

It does demonstrate that if you build your own track you can cram quite a lot into a small space if you need to. :)

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Craftsmanship/clever 5
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Tony,

 

Here you go. I haven't gone beyond the limits of the photo because I don't know what's there.

 

buckingham_throat_em.jpg.98db82c5f8f2af52a97d706a2afe5f0e.jpg

 

The grid lines are 1ft apart:

 

buckingham_throat_em1.jpg.38314763083f025afe1c966fa680b9e7.jpg

 

buckingham_throat_em2.jpg.dcd456b5dc286579140a676de6820aa9.jpg

 

buckingham_throat_em3.jpg.182afb420924969815a7be76350454a7.jpg

 

It seems to be doable in EM, all using short prototype straight switches. The checking is a bit tight in places, but just about works. The tandem relies on the V-crossings checking each other, which is normally only done in yards.

 

I haven't done the timbering because it's a tedious task and as far as I know no-one is actually planning to build this. The tandem is a bit of a mess and if anyone is intending to build it the approach track would be worth re-aligning.

 

It does demonstrate that if you build your own track you can cram quite a lot into a small space if you need to. :)

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Very impressive Martin. It demonstrates how versatile Templot can be in the right hands as well as how clever Peter Denny was at fitting all that into the space without using anything more advanced than a ruler, a few cardboard curves and a pencil.

 

I wonder if anybody will want to have a go at recreating it. I have sometimes wondered how Buckingham done with modern materials and methods would differ from the Denny version.

 

It won't be me though. Why build a copy when I have the original?

 

Well done and a huge thanks from me.

 

Tony G

  • Like 6
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 29/08/2021 at 23:49, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Here's one I prepared earlier, with two tracks for arriving trains and two for departures, all with a minimum of conflicting paths.

 

image.png.7c2dfb025a24cd42b4024b279061e050.png

That's not a Minories, that's a Majories! :jester:

Edited by Waraqah
Edited to say, I just noticed the Platform 9 et trois quarts. :-)
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 30/08/2021 at 00:52, Pacific231G said:

Good one Keith. Why am I thinking of Kings Cross?

 

There was that curious extension to platform one at Paddington with AFAIR it's own track that I think had been postal,

 

Thanks, that was inspired by the 'Bastille' version of Minories you mentioned, and the realisation that the "ladder" could be extended in both directions, on both sides of the incoming main line.

 

Kings Cross? I couldn't possibly comment, you'd have to ask the General Manager of Gare Rue L'Un. Email: jkrowling@gareruelun.org.

I'm told the parcels platform and goods shed are used for all kinds of publication and goods that are too bulky to be sent via the Floo Network, like Practical Wizardry, the Daily Wizard.

 

Yes, that curious extension at Paddington has stuck firmly in my memory as a prototype for all kinds of modelling of station extensions for postal mail and express freight. I can't remember the name of the GPO sorting office at Paddington, but I can remember being able to turn left off of Praed Street, down the approach road into the station, through the station and up a ramp to the sorting office. To get to the Late Collections postbox, to post things at up to 22:00 at night for next day delivery. Long gone now?

  • Like 2
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Thanks, that was inspired by the 'Bastille' version of Minories you mentioned, and the realisation that the "ladder" could be extended in both directions, on both sides of the incoming main line.

 

Kings Cross? I couldn't possibly comment, you'd have to ask the General Manager of Gare Rue L'Un. Email: jkrowling@gareruelun.org.

I'm told the parcels platform and goods shed are used for all kinds of publication and goods that are too bulky to be sent via the Floo Network, like Practical Wizardry, the Daily Wizard.

 

Yes, that curious extension at Paddington has stuck firmly in my memory as a prototype for all kinds of modelling of station extensions for postal mail and express freight. I can't remember the name of the GPO sorting office at Paddington, but I can remember being able to turn left off of Praed Street, down the approach road into the station, through the station and up a ramp to the sorting office. To get to the Late Collections postbox, to post things at up to 22:00 at night for next day delivery. Long gone now?

Hi Keith

A description of the Post Office Railway describes it as the Paddington Head District Sorting Office but I think it was latterly simply referred to as the Paddington Sorting Office. It was the western terrminus of the PO Railway. 

You might also have had the satisfaction of knowing that, unless your late mail was going to Wales or the west, it would likely have travelled on the PO railway across London (to Mt. Pleasant for King's Cross and Euston or to Liverpool St.)

ISTR that you could post things even later- at a slightly higher price- by using the letter boxes actually on the sides of the TPOs though that would obviously only work for the areas served by that particular train. Not a lot of point in posting a letter for Newcastle onto the Plymouth main train! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The covered area behind the curve at the top end of platform one at Paddington was used for railway parcels traffic. In broad gauge days it had a platform of its own with wagon turntables. Theres a subway used for tugs and trollies curves away from it and passing under all the platforms with lifts accessing the platforms, parallel with the footbridge at the top of the station. (There’s another subway halfway up the platforms which used to accesssed by passengers.)

The access to the Post Office tube was in the bottom end of the station, with a conveyor belt slanting down, in the corner close to the ticket office. The GPO sorting office was across the road from the station, on the Hospital side, (London Rd.) but I couldn’t say whether there was an independent lift into it up from the tube. Most of the mail and newspapers traffic was handled on the 11 and 12 platforms side, very lively and congested in an evening.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A very low effort double minories, because I got bored. Assuming a London terminus, the lines from top to bottom are UM, DM, UR, DR. The Main Lines should be able to access all platforms, and the Relief Lines all platforms except P1 (numbered top to bottom). Originally the slip at the end of the UR was a simple point, however, this meant that all arrivals from the relief line would foul all departures from P2-3. I created an alternative route to avoid this, but on that route arrivals would foul all departures to the DR.

image.png.94d7c7c1d2477808b28249fc5eb3475e.png

This led to a second version. The Main Lines and P1-3 could (and probably would under ordinary circumstances) operate as a standard minories, as could the Relief Lines and P4-6. These could now operate independently as all conflicting movements have been removed. In theory, the Main Lines and P4-6 could also operate as a standard minories if there were no movements on other lines, and I believe the entire station could in principle function (albeit with reduced capacity) using the Main Lines alone. The Relief Lines retain access to P2-3, though using a route which would foul departures from the other platform. This remains a vast improvement on the first design because arrivals into 4-6 no longer conflict with departures from 2-3. This is about as far as I plan to take the design as it was only created to fill a morning, but I thought I would leave it here in case anybody wanted to have some more fun with it.

image.png.62e35e7c392099c69d6d9c9a192eea7b.png

  • Like 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 21/09/2021 at 12:10, DK123GWR said:

A very low effort double minories, because I got bored. Assuming a London terminus, the lines from top to bottom are UM, DM, UR, DR. The Main Lines should be able to access all platforms, and the Relief Lines all platforms except P1 (numbered top to bottom). Originally the slip at the end of the UR was a simple point, however, this meant that all arrivals from the relief line would foul all departures from P2-3. I created an alternative route to avoid this, but on that route arrivals would foul all departures to the DR.

image.png.94d7c7c1d2477808b28249fc5eb3475e.png

This led to a second version. The Main Lines and P1-3 could (and probably would under ordinary circumstances) operate as a standard minories, as could the Relief Lines and P4-6. These could now operate independently as all conflicting movements have been removed. In theory, the Main Lines and P4-6 could also operate as a standard minories if there were no movements on other lines, and I believe the entire station could in principle function (albeit with reduced capacity) using the Main Lines alone. The Relief Lines retain access to P2-3, though using a route which would foul departures from the other platform. This remains a vast improvement on the first design because arrivals into 4-6 no longer conflict with departures from 2-3. This is about as far as I plan to take the design as it was only created to fill a morning, but I thought I would leave it here in case anybody wanted to have some more fun with it.

image.png.62e35e7c392099c69d6d9c9a192eea7b.png

this might look ok on paper but a lot of the possible routes will be compromised by having to traverse reverse curves across double slips.

  • Agree 1
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...