Jump to content
 

Split ends?


Recommended Posts

Whilst browsing layout threads recently, I noticed something on tender's Camel Quay layout that I thought I could make use of on mine.  It's the separate, staggered ramps for the two faces of the platform, probably best shown in this photo:

 

post-11105-0-12854500-1374774234.jpg

 

Is this a reasonably prototypical configuration?  On Camel Quay one platform face is for passengers and the other is for goods.  On my layout both platform faces would be for passengers.  Would this be acceptable?  I'm assuming that the projecting part of the longer platform would (i) still meet the minimum width requirements, and (ii) be fenced in order to prevent passengers from falling off the back, on the the ramp of the shorter platform.

 

Are there any examples of such a configuration having existed on the real railway?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are prototypes for most things but I'm not sure why this configuration would be employed.    Platforms are basically a wall beside the railway around 4ft high with any old rubbish packed in behind to support a levelish platform surface.    Island platforms two walls enclosing any old rubbish.   There are exceptions with wooden platforms, platforms over rivers (Pickering NYMR) On viaducts (Stroud GWR) etc.

 

So the configuration in the photo would normally only  arise when one platform face had been extended and not the other, or If there had been a bay line between at one time which had been filled in.

 

Basically if it looks right it probably is right.   (Actually the quote is from Sir Sydney Camm "If its right it will probably look right.") 

 

Platform heights were generally not altered from construction to closure, but the rail heights change, with relaying and re-ballasting . A height just below buffer centre line height generally  looks about right.   Some of mine are 1mm too high above rail top level and look wrong  Many 00 RTR products have historically had buffers 1mm or so too high and as I lowered them it spoiled the ratio to the platforms.   Set a buffer height + or - 0.25mm and stick to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hatfield station (shed 34C - optimal - thus my id) had the required complex history of endless 'additions' to the platforms and taken through time 'has it all': up and down platforms of significantly different lengths, widths and heights, positioned staggered relative to each other and I believe at one stage with staggered ramps on both ends of the two down platform faces. It's a complete mish-mash, or a very characterful subject for modelling purposes, according to taste.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Loughborough is like this now, the up main platform (2) being quite a bit longer, able to acommodate a full HST at least, than 3 which is a bi-directional platform on the down slow line. Without checking I think 3 is about 4-5 coach lengths.

The bay at Grantham (current platform 3) is just long enough for 4 cars, wheras the down main platform alongside is again able to take a full East Coast HST set with 9 trailers.

Loughborough is a relatively recent modification but Grantham has been like it since steam days

Link to post
Share on other sites

At Birmingham Snow Hill platform 6 extended beyond the end of No.4 Bay. The back edge of platform 6 was fenced from the top of the Bay platform ramp

 

Am I right in thinking that that fence is the one visible in these photos?

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/loose_grip_99/3451329545/in/album-72157630424807512/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/loose_grip_99/548396039/in/album-72157630424807512/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/loose_grip_99/209305979/in/album-72157630424807512/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/loose_grip_99/195963770/in/album-72157630424807512/

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...