Bays in an island platform - Evolving a Bad Idea

[TheSignalEngineer]

Birmingham Snow Hill in its old form had bays in both of the main islands at the Wolverhampton end.

[melmerby]

Birmingham Snow Hill in its old form had bays in both of the main islands at the Wolverhampton end.

But not two sets of bays in one island platform, which was the original query.

 

Keith

Edited August 25, 2017 by melmerby

[luckymucklebackit]

My Northbridge Station has two bays at one end, ending just short of an overbridge, the big "V" at the other end was filled with a crew amenities block as shown below.

 

 

Hope this helps

 

Jim

[The Bigbee Line]

Lewes is Sussex doesn't have a bay, but it has the big angle in the middle and an unusual line with platform on both sides.

[sulzer27jd]

Leuchars Junction had a single island platform, with bays at both ends. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Immediately said Waverley (either end) to me, which would easily justify more bays either for passenger or parcels use. Platforms will be about 30cm wide which seems a lot but in fact we probably tend to make most of our model platforms too narrow. At busy city termini they needed a lot of space to handle parcels, taxis, etc.

 

I like the general concept of the layout but think that the throat needs a bit of sorting out.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Have you considered having hidden sidings at the back with roundy-roundy operation just clockwise? (I may need to draw that to make it clear)

[The Johnster]

Pontypool Road, where Ivor used to get his steam crane from, was (well, still is) an island platform which originally had twin bays at either end for Monmouth traffic going north and Vale of Neath traffic to the south.  Cardiff General's platform 5 was a single track bay set into the down island platform 3 and 4, used by the Porthcawl commuter service but during the rest of the day for parcels traffic, for which it was particularly useful as you could work the vans from both sides.

 

Wide platforms are justifiable especially where postal or other road vehicles have to have access, and a 'V' formation might have the main station building in the angle of the V, like Bristol Temple Meads between the original Brunel trainshed and the curve to the Bristol and Exeter station which is now effectively the main station.  As has been stated many model platforms are too narrow in order to save space, and some seem to challenge George Stephenson's minimum 6 foot width, 10 foot between faces on island platforms.  

[The Johnster]

I prefer the upper of your plans, btw, I think the extra bays of the other version are trying to squeeze too much in and the outside through roads are a nice touch.  One comment; the original Cyril Freezer Minories concept had no reverse curves to assist in smooth propelling movements, and you have two, the facing and trailing crossovers.  If you are using setrack, this may lead to issues with propelling and multiple unit work.  Radius 1 and 2 will restrict your stock options around the end curve very considerably, especially for modern image, and an upgrade to 3/4 will be very desirable if you can manage it.

Edited August 25, 2017 by The Johnster

[The Stationmaster]

But not two sets of bays in one island platform, which was the original query.

 

Keith

 

Double track bays were not uncommon in island platforms (e.g Swindon, Rugby, York) although single track were probably the most numerous.  Two double track bays at the same end of an island platform were I suspect pretty rare although they could certainly be found at through stations where they weren't on an island platform.

[melmerby]

Double track bays were not uncommon in island platforms (e.g Swindon, Rugby, York) although single track were probably the most numerous.  Two double track bays at the same end of an island platform were I suspect pretty rare although they could certainly be found at through stations where they weren't on an island platform.

Hence my posting of info on Rugby which had two double track bays at the North end and one 4 track bay at the South and Waverley which had loads both ends.

 

Rugby about 1910:

http://warwickshirerailways.com/lms/lnwr/rugby/station/lnwrrm2537.jpg

 

Note the easternmost bay marked as "Midland Railway"

The two bays at Rugby lasted down the years well into the BR period before rationalisation set in.

 

Keith

[TheSignalEngineer]

Hence my posting of info on Rugby which had two double track bays at the North end and one 4 track bay at the South and Waverley which had loads both ends.

 

Rugby about 1910:

http://warwickshirerailways.com/lms/lnwr/rugby/station/lnwrrm2537.jpg

 

Note the easternmost bay marked as "Midland Railway"

The two bays at Rugby lasted down the years well into the BR period before rationalisation set in.

 

Keith

I think they probably lasted until the rationalisation of 1984-5, when the North Interlocking was renewed.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Thanks all for your replies, too many to acknowledge 1 by 1 but they are all useful. Just a couple of responses below:

 

My Northbridge Station has two bays at one end, ending just short of an overbridge, the big "V" at the other end was filled with a crew amenities block as shown below.

 

 

Hope this helps

 

Jim

  

 

That looks quite effective, thanks for sharing that, fills the wide V nicely.

 

 

Immediately said Waverley (either end) to me, which would easily justify more bays either for passenger or parcels use. Platforms will be about 30cm wide which seems a lot but in fact we probably tend to make most of our model platforms too narrow. At busy city termini they needed a lot of space to handle parcels, taxis, etc.

 

I like the general concept of the layout but think that the throat needs a bit of sorting out.

  

 

Yup throat needs attention. I'm playing with it from an electrical operations point of view so there are obvious ommisions like a trailing crossing allowing access from up to down, but there is still connections from up to down in the bays. The upper plan looks better to me, I'm just not 100% happy with shunt moves to/from the bays blocking the whole of the down line.

 

 

Have you considered having hidden sidings at the back with roundy-roundy operation just clockwise? (I may need to draw that to make it clear)

  

 

Yes, kinda, but it didn't quite fit and feel right. The idea was to use 'minories' as bay platforms at one end of a long platform like Cambridge (The front track in the traditional minories design became the through platform), with the scissors just poking out from under a bridge hiding the other half of the station. The bypass track and goods loops were in front of that. That design really is a whole different topic with the issues I had with it!

 

 

I prefer the upper of your plans, btw, I think the extra bays of the other version are trying to squeeze too much in and the outside through roads are a nice touch.  One comment; the original Cyril Freezer Minories concept had no reverse curves to assist in smooth propelling movements, and you have two, the facing and trailing crossovers.  If you are using setrack, this may lead to issues with propelling and multiple unit work.  Radius 1 and 2 will restrict your stock options around the end curve very considerably, especially for modern image, and an upgrade to 3/4 will be very desirable if you can manage it.

Agree on the upper plan. As mentioned in the original post, I've just drawn it 'straight' for ease, it's not properly to scale and in a final draft it would cover the reverse curves as with the original minories plan.

 

Radius 1/2 have been used as it's what I already have, it's all off scene and saves a bit of width. the plan is aimed at older stock i don't want to make code 75 compatible (triang, lima, older Hornby, etc) and as such are all r1 friendly. Any exceptions are likely to be modern wagons like VGAs, which would be on the outer track anyway. Think coarse scale modelling rather than super realism.

 

 

 

All in all, I'm edging towards adding a single extra shorter bay that trails onto platform 1, with a building occupying the rest of the space. The extra platform would only be 2 coaches long and more aimed at parcels stock and stabling as there would be no 'down' access to it. Still leaves me with the shunting headache, but I'll try and have a draw up in a bit.

[Norm81]

Double track bays were not uncommon in island platforms (e.g Swindon, Rugby, York) although single track were probably the most numerous. Two double track bays at the same end of an island platform were I suspect pretty rare although they could certainly be found at through stations where they weren't on an island platform.

Newcastle Central still has two double track bays at the same end of a platform - not an island though - and had even more than two at both ends in the past.

 

http://www.nrm.org.uk/ResearchAndArchive/drawing?group=OPC&objid=21288-2-NewcastleCentralTrackplan

 

The most western bays were for parcels I think. Maybe just apply just a little "modellers licence" ?

 

Darlington is a single bay in the island, but was four tracks with each platform face having it's own release road, so quite a bit wider than your double track bay (second picture down on the link).

 

http://www.railwayarchitecture.org.uk/Location/Darlington/Darlington%20Bank%20Top%20Station.htm

Edited August 25, 2017 by Norm81

[Siberian Snooper]

Preston, has a double track bay at the south end.

[DCB]

While stuck in the 'am I moving house or not' limbo so not wanting to start building anything else, i'm still playing about with Minories plans trying to work out what best will fit my needs. On another thread I've already come up with a terminus - fiddle yard design based on Minories that I find quite aesthetically pleasing, but it doesn't have that 'train set' continuous run element that i'd also like.

 Going back to he top I think the concept is badly flawed in 00.  Its good for N with 12" curves but in 00 1st radius is something many current RTR locos are unable to cope with.    Using 2nd radius makes the inner track 36" diameter and the outer 40" so the baseboard is getting seriously wide and worse the platform at getting on for 3 feet wide.

You might get away with the divergent lines at a Junction station with the two routes diverging and there were rare examples of this with just one bi directional platform  and I believe Forres was one but it is very unusual.

The drawn layout would have to be viewed from the top to be interesting, Otherwise you will be looking at the back of trains with the loco hidden in the tunnel on the nearer lines and reaching over to shunt locos etc.

Actually operating with more than a couple of trains looks nigh on impossible with engine changing requiring multiple shunts back and forth using headshunts etc, OK on Inglenook but hugely frustrating on a busy layout

It is an OK theory the dumbell, My loft layout is designed so any train can run either clockwide or anticlockwise around the layout and return to its starting hidden road so I can run to sequence or take anything out of sequence, the only problem is the concept does not work due to trains conflicting with one another at the various junctions.

I suggest a serious rethink and making the bay roads as long as possible otherwise you are looking at 2 coach locals as well as the 5 coach max main line trains you can hide in the tunnels.

Making the station a junction would be much more interesting...

[Joseph_Pestell]

Always difficult to come up with the best option when we don't have firm dimensions to work with.

 

I think though that David may be onto something. This layout will probably work better, length permitting, with station being narrower.

[john new]

York has bays in both ends of the central island platform. The wall of the overroofed section is what makes it less obvious as bays.

[TheSignalEngineer]

Always difficult to come up with the best option when we don't have firm dimensions to work with.

 

I think though that David may be onto something. This layout will probably work better, length permitting, with station being narrower.

Looking again at the original sketches, my impression is that it would need a space about 4ft wide and 30ft long to make this concept work in 00. I think we need to know the available space to make any more judgements.

[Compound2632]

Hence my posting of info on Rugby which had two double track bays at the North end and one 4 track bay at the South and Waverley which had loads both ends.

 

Rugby about 1910:

http://warwickshirerailways.com/lms/lnwr/rugby/station/lnwrrm2537.jpg

 

Note the easternmost bay marked as "Midland Railway"

The two bays at Rugby lasted down the years well into the BR period before rationalisation set in.

 

Keith

 

Originally, the junction of the Midland Counties with the London & Birmingham at Rugby must have allowed for through running to and from the Leicester direction on what was the first railway route to Scotland. (Unfortunately the earliest 25" map on the NLS website is 1886 and shows the 'new' station per Keith's plan, at least at the north end.) By the time the 'new' station was built, the Leicester - Rugby section had become a secondary line as far as passenger traffic was concerned - it's an oddity of the plan that the Midland lines cross the up fast on the level without any connection, which one would have thought unnecessarily inconvenient - the Midland bay is a sort of station within a station. There are connections for the goods lines - that from the down through goods line has to cross every other through running line, which must have been even more of an operational nightmare.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Compound2632

[Northroader]

Wasn't the original Scottish route up the L&B to Hampton in Arden, then B&DJ via Kingsbury?

[Compound2632]

Wasn't the original Scottish route up the L&B to Hampton in Arden, then B&DJ via Kingsbury?

 

OK you win on a technicality: for the eleven months from August 1839 to July 1840.

[Talltim]

Surprised no one has mentioned Sheffield. As well as having single bays at the south end of both island platforms, it has a two track bay at the north end where the tracks get further apart towards the centre of the station. This could be replicated to disguise the width of the platform

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3786784,-1.4619989,19z/data=!3m1!1e3

Another option is to have two bay platforms with a centre loco release line

[bescotbeast]

 Going back to he top I think the concept is badly flawed in 00.  Its good for N with 12" curves but in 00 1st radius is something many current RTR locos are unable to cope with.    Using 2nd radius makes the inner track 36" diameter and the outer 40" so the baseboard is getting seriously wide and worse the platform at getting on for 3 feet wide.

You might get away with the divergent lines at a Junction station with the two routes diverging and there were rare examples of this with just one bi directional platform  and I believe Forres was one but it is very unusual.

The drawn layout would have to be viewed from the top to be interesting, Otherwise you will be looking at the back of trains with the loco hidden in the tunnel on the nearer lines and reaching over to shunt locos etc.

Actually operating with more than a couple of trains looks nigh on impossible with engine changing requiring multiple shunts back and forth using headshunts etc, OK on Inglenook but hugely frustrating on a busy layout

It is an OK theory the dumbell, My loft layout is designed so any train can run either clockwide or anticlockwise around the layout and return to its starting hidden road so I can run to sequence or take anything out of sequence, the only problem is the concept does not work due to trains conflicting with one another at the various junctions.

I suggest a serious rethink and making the bay roads as long as possible otherwise you are looking at 2 coach locals as well as the 5 coach max main line trains you can hide in the tunnels.

Making the station a junction would be much more interesting...

I agree with the fiddle yard point, one of my biggest regrets with Pendeford yard is the lack of fiddle yard capacity. I've got 4 through roads which with some jiggery pokery I've managed to extend in length but I wish I'd got more storage roads, I'm constantly having to take stock on and off the layout.

[The Bigbee Line]

I've seen a plan or an article in Railway Modeller many years ago for a Terminus that had such an arrangement, with the outer tracks forming a loop.  The station throat then led to a double junction forming another loop and allowing continuous running.  In the V of the double junction as a steam loco depot a bit like Faversham...

 

That was a long time ago....