Jump to content
 

Great Eastern based EMU Terminus.


Spikeyorks
 Share

Recommended Posts

Would the washing plant sit sensibly between the curved point and the double slip?

 

Chris

Hi Chris.

 

It could do. The attached photos show how close Chingford's washer is to the stabling sidings there.

So I guess siting it immediately above the diamond would be plausible.

Unless anyone else knows differently?

 

David

post-24885-0-79955600-1523189903.jpg

post-24885-0-70837200-1523189906_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hi Mike

 

I am coming round to the idea of siting the washer by the diamond. Thanks Chris.

 

1) It would definitely be an old box that had been re-equipped.

2) The other good thing about siting it by the diamond would be that any associated huts/offices could be sited nearby.

3) We will assume that all points around this area would be operated by hand.

4) We'll leave the signal box where it is.

 

I will tweak the plan and then explain my traverser idea.

 

Thanks

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is the plotted plan with the washer road and the stabling sidings swapped around.

The immediate plusses of this are as follows;

 

1) The traverser now has much more room to operate within. (I have also reduced the number of roads to 5).

2) There are now 3 stabling sidings at the RH end all of which can now take 4 car emus.

3) Platform 3 can now take a 4 car emu as can the centre road.

4) The washer now is on the LH edge of the central board.

5) I have reinstated the loco release road for the CL31 suburban services.

 

My only questions at the moment are;

 

a) Is the signal box in the correct location?

b) Is the washer unit too close to the road overbridge?

 

Any more suggestions / ideas?

(Now I'm going to mull over Phil's suggestion of putting the traverser at the front of the layout).

 

Thanks

 

David

 

 

 

I really like your track plan illustrated with this post.

 

If it were my choice I am with Chimer and would have the washer on the track below the diamond.

 

Yes, it might lead to some rather lengthy EMU shunting manoeuvres, but not every station was the epitome of efficiency when it came to working practices. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like your track plan illustrated with this post.

 

If it were my choice I am with Chimer and would have the washer on the track below the diamond.

 

Yes, it might lead to some rather lengthy EMU shunting manoeuvres, but not every station was the epitome of efficiency when it came to working practices.

Hi Jonny

 

I think I am definitely now sold on the idea of the washer by the diamond.

(Lengthy shunting manoeuvres are no bad thing).

I have now drawn this in and then will, in due cause, add all sorts of scenery paraphernalia around this area.

 

Thanks

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be the case that (beware, I am no expert on these things) units laying over after morning rush hour duties, would be booked for a trip through the washer; and because the same units would not repeat diagrams on consecutive days, eventually most of them would go through the washer over a week or so. 

 

I'm glad that you reinstated the loco stabling siding. Not only does it give more operational interest with loco and suburban stock moves; but it looks as if it is one of those items from a previous era which has not been subjected to the typical "modernisation" hatchet job so prevalent at that time. And the operators are finding a use for it, in the hope that it will not be removed. (Sorry, my imagination runs away with me at times). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I now think it time to expand on my idea for the traverser.

I do agree that for home use it would be easier to have a forward facing traverser.

However I am less sure about the scenery compromises to achieve this.

(Also there is an outside chance that I might want to exhibit locally).

 

So, inspired by Peter flipping his drawing, I have therefore decided to consider making the layout flippable too,

And I think I can do this by adding symmetry to the layout and being smart/simple with the backscenes.

 

My plan is to simply have detachable backscenes that are brick retaining walls with pictured houses above.

(Metcalfe specials maybe?)

By adding an additional road crossing at the opposite end of the central board I then have a symmetrical sided board.

(I also have somewhere extra to securely attach the backscene too).

I can then fit the same backscene on either side (top or bottom of the plan) thus being able to have the layout either way around.

 

I can nearly do the same on the station board however this backscene couldn't include the overbridge as there isn't a matching one at the other end.

However, so long as I am careful with the scenery, I could still swap the backs right up to the point of the final overbridge.

(I would then just need to have two small backscenes for the top and bottom of that road bridge area).

 

The only downside I can see is that I wouldn't be able to "see" the single headshunt at the bottom of the layout.

For home use I don't think I would miss that and I would now have the plus of being able to have the layout either way round.

 

What do you all think?

I think that this idea could work although I know that there would be implications for the control panel.

However simply for a scenery and physical point of view is there any reason why I couldn't try for the best both of both worlds?

(From an operating point of view the layout would fit either way round in my available space).

 

So is this just plain daft or worth investigating further?

 

Thanks

 

David

 

 

 

 

post-24885-0-78556900-1523194777_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a good idea.

 

Why not swap the end slightly so you have your station on the overbridge but just I,ply the road behind it? That way it won't matter which way round the back scene is fitted?

 

Alternatively if you must have the road bridge in front of the station then make that back scene double sided; each side is a mirror image so there's always a way around that will match where the bridge is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Paul's suggestion that you mock it up when you feel you have got there, as that will often highlight issues not readily apparent.

 

But the comparison with Bradfield (a wonderful layout) is somewhat misleading. He has not used the full 2ft width of his board at the station end, I would guess only about 15 to 18 inches, as part of his fiddle road arrangement extends to the rear of that.

 

However, there is truth in what Paul says about it now looking a little squeezed at the station end. Now that you have three stabling roads back, perhaps you might want to consider losing the middle road, and move your platform three across to give more separation from the stabling roads (or widen your platforms), to give a greater sense of space? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The latest design does seem a bit overworked and over-complicated IMHO.

 

If you're thinking about operating it from the front at home and from the back at shows, you could simply have different fiddle yard modules for the two operating modes. Or simpler still, the same fiddle yard but with a panel to fix to the front to hide it at shows.

 

If the layout is all DCC controlled, including points and signals, then you should be able to avoid having a fixed control panel.

 

Since there's now only one stabling siding parallel with the fiddle yard, I wonder whether it really justifies being scenic. I realise it's needed as a "headshunt" of sorts to allow DMUs to pass through the washer and across the diamond but it could be offscene, just a line behind the traverser (if you flipped some of the design top to bottom) or a connection to a line on the traverser. In fact, you could even make the front line of the traverser be a scenic siding, with the retaining wall behind it fixed to the traverser bed. It would look a bit odd when traverser is extended but it would look great when the traverser is retracted and when the layout is not in use.  :sungum:

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Paul, perhaps I misunderstood your first post, but I thought it concerned the view that the layout looked too "full", when using Bradfield as a comparison, in addition to fitting the planned layout into the length available. That was in addition to your comments regarding the need to mock up something in 3D, before making a final decision, with which I fully agree.

 

Just to be clear, I believe he has now made the decision to raise the station buildings above the track, so that there is an extra 10-12 inches of length available, compared to your calculations.

 

I still think an issue remains with the number of parallel tracks squeezed across the 2ft width, (my reading of "full"!), hence my suggestion to lose at least one of them.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Here's another idea [Edit: updated slightly]:

post-32492-0-13391800-1523342924_thumb.png

 

Imagine that the two lines entering the scene are either side of a bridge pier. This spaces them apart enough to allow the line down to the stabling/washer area to cross both the trailing crossover and the up running line. 

 

Plus points:

  • Nice lazy wiggle on entry and exit
  • Retains your washer/diamond formation
  • Stabling sidings with retaining wall on the traverser. When retracted scene looks complete and non-scenic traverser roads could be entirely hidden under scenic cover.
  • Traverser opens towards you on telescopic runners so that you have access to all roads
  • Giant traverser can have up to 10 roads (although 8 might be more sensible)
  • All pointwork in central 5 foot section
  • Dense throat trackwork could look great - very urban.
  • Crossover on scene means no need for implied crossover offscene or entry onto scene on the wrong side of the tracks.
  • Various parallel movements are possible.

 

Arriving trains can only access platforms 1 and 2 directly (along with the topmost siding and the depot area). Maybe that's OK, though.

There might be other difficulties I haven't spotted yet.

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Here's another idea [Edit: updated slightly]:

attachicon.gifge emu 4i.png

 

Imagine that the two lines entering the scene are either side of a bridge parapet. This spaces them apart enough to allow the line down to the stabling/washer area to cross both the trailing crossover and the up running line. 

 

Plus points:

  • Nice lazy wiggle on entry and exit
  • Retains your washer/diamond formation
  • Stabling sidings with retaining wall on the traverser. When retracted scene looks complete and non-scenic traverser roads could be entirely hidden under scenic cover.
  • Traverser opens towards you on telescopic runners so that you have access to all roads
  • Giant traverser can have up to 10 roads (although 8 might be more sensible)
  • All pointwork in central 5 foot section
  • Dense throat trackwork could look great - very urban.
  • Crossover on scene means no need for implied crossover offscene or entry onto scene on the wrong side of the tracks.
  • Various parallel movements are possible.

 

Arriving trains can only access platforms 1 and 2 directly (along with the topmost siding and the depot area). Maybe that's OK, though.

There might be other difficulties I haven't spotted yet.

 

As ever your throat design is fascinating, and the whole thing looks much more uncluttered, realistic and operable to me.  I love the ideas on this thread but it was ending up with a set of parallel lines stretching right across the board which IMHO was losing the potential attractiveness.

 

I would question the trail of diamonds from the "in" line.  I am not sure what they are for really.  Shunting from platforms would usually (?) be carried out on the "out" line, so this would only be there to run empty stock from some other imaginary point off this layout directly into the carriage siding/washer head shunt at the cost of stopping all other movements.  I'd probably remove it, but replace the next point in towards the station (under the SB) with a single slip and extend to the double slip such that incoming trains could get to P3 (and the central siding - but that would be a bit perverse too).  If you linked the head shunt to the "out" line maybe by a 3-way and a diamond then the head shunt could be longer. Now all platforms can be reached incoming and leave outgoing on visible point work.

 

One "requirement" - that of multiple EMU storage lines has gone - and that may be a no-no for the OP.  To my mind the de-cluttering is better.

 

If there were to be ECS coming in for the Carriage Depot, if you remove the diamonds it would have to go into a platform (or the central siding) first and then zig zag into the head shunt via the "out" line.

 

Someone needs to analyse requirements and traffic flows before any decisions, but I think this is a good contribution.

Edited by imt
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I have a further idea which extends the length of P2 and P3 on the assumption that ECS re-positioning is done via the "out" line. Remove the double slip and point on P2 and replace by back to back points on the central siding/P3 exit.  This means that cleaned ECS can exit into either the central siding or P3 directly.  Positioning to P1/P2 would require a move to the "out" and then back to the required platform.  It then becomes debatable as to whether the line from the centre siding to one of the storage sidings at the right is actually required at all?  That would mean 2 storage sidings off a head shunt and all access by shunting to/from platforms via the "out" line.

 

As I have said - some analysis of the kind of traffic expected/desired would be helpful for making a final design.  I am also ignorant of operating procedures that might apply in real life.  What I have seen implies shunting is more usual on the "out" line but maybe this ain't necessarily so?  In which case the diamond ladder could stay in - it looks attractive and town terminal space limited/complexity.

 

A mashed up sketch is attached.

SCN1523369570532.pdf

Edited by imt
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I have a further idea which extends the length of P2 and P3 on the assumption that ECS re-positioning is done via the "out" line. Remove the double slip and point on P2 and replace by back to back points on the central siding/P3 exit.  This means that cleaned ECS can exit into either the central siding or P3 directly.  Positioning to P1/P2 would require a move to the "out" and then back to the required platform.  It then becomes debatable as to whether the line from the centre siding to one of the storage sidings at the right is actually required at all?  That would mean 2 storage sidings off a head shunt and all access by shunting to/from platforms via the "out" line.

 

As I have said - some analysis of the kind of traffic expected/desired would be helpful for making a final design.  I am also ignorant of operating procedures that might apply in real life.  What I have seen implies shunting is more usual on the "out" line but maybe this ain't necessarily so?  In which case the diamond ladder could stay in - it looks attractive and town terminal space limited/complexity.

 

A mashed up sketch is attached.

Hi Imt,

 

David, Spikeyorks, the OP, says that the scissors crossing is characteristic of GE stations and is one of his absolute requirements: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/130407-great-eastern-based-emu-terminus/page-4&do=findComment&comment=3114921

 

That constraint is key to the design and makes other changes quite difficult. I agree it would be good to lengthen Platform3 and make it directly accessible to arrivals but it's difficult to juggle the conflicting requirements to do it. (I think Platform3 should hold 4-unit sets as drawn, BTW.) In many of David's earlier designs not all the platforms could be accessed from the arrival line so I'm hoping this restriction is acceptable.

 

It might be possible to replace the back to back points on the arrival line with a slip but the two points do give a smoother curve than a (Peco) slip and I used the large Y specifically to throw the track up to the top of the board at a better angle to give more length to P1 and P2.

 

There may be a way to combine the scissor crossing with the down line but I can't quite see it yet.

 

Hopefully my design has enough EMU storage sidings? There is room for more but I didn't want to pack in too much track. (I also have the vague idea of a high-level yard on top of the traverser. It wouldn't be operable but stock could stand on tracks up there for display purposes.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Enfield Town's scissors crossover is made at the point of closest approach between the sidings line and the nearest running line, with crossovers between the up and down line either side of it, a bit like this (in Peco Streamline geometry):

post-32492-0-13909300-1523400361_thumb.png

 

Stabling sidings in opposition to the platforms, goods sidings alongside but by 1967 the goods yard was reduced simply to a headshunt.

Washer between the stabling and the scissors crossover.

Note the leading crossover on entry which allows arriving trains to reach every platform.

 

David's most recent design is similar topologically but moves the washer inside the enlarged scissors crossover.

 

(Enfield Town was much more linear whereas I deliberately cranked the running lines for more interest.)

 

OK, I get it now...

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

OK, just for my own sanity (!), here's something much closer to Enfield Town and to David's designs.

post-32492-0-88145000-1523432308_thumb.png

 

  • Angled platforms to separate them from the stabling, get a bit more length and make the design a bit less static.
  • Suggested loco spur and kickback siding behind signal box.
  • Fed by a big traverser with the front line scenic and acting as headshunt only.
  • All platforms and all sidings directly accessible on arrival from the down line.

Phew!

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

Apologies for not posting for a few days but I've been tied up at work and hadn't logged on until last night.

Crikey I can now there have been quite a few suggestions made which I will respond to in due course.

In some cases, although the suggestions have merit, they move the layout too far away from what I originally envisaged.

However I will try and digest (and pinch) all ideas that I think are helpful.

 

I am reflecting on a few issues;

1) Changing to cassettes to simplify the track layout. (A few people have suggested that 4 car max train length would be OK).

2) Putting the stabling sidings back at the left hand end to give the longer scenic run (and make the crossover more relevant).

3) Introducing a curve (although this would stop me from ever extending at the RH end).

4) Adding 3 inches to both width and overall length.

 

Just for the hell of it I quickly mocked up the following.

It isn't finished and, ironically, it assumes a 4 road traverser. (1 square = 3 inches)

It is similar to my other track plans but is more curvy.

I still plan to elevate the station building to maximise the length of my platforms.

 

Tonight I will play with this some more and also read through everyone else's suggestions in more detail.

I appreciate all the feedback as there are plenty of "nuggets" there that will be helpful.

 

David

post-24885-0-56387600-1523448987_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

David, a while back you mentioned the East Ham depot as part inspiration for your stabling sidings.

 

A kick back siding like this is quite common to hide the fiddle yard, as i'm sure you're aware.

I was wondering if to add a bit of scenic variety you might put a road cutting under the stabling sidings?

From memory there was one, a single lane road controlled by traffic lights, that ducked under the lines near East Ham depot.

This was en route from where my dad worked in Barking and where my Nan lived in Manor Park and we'd sometimes go this way.   

I can't see it on the map now, perhaps newer house building has removed that road in the intervening decades! 

 

Like your EMUs - very nostalgic. Good luck with your project. Look forward to seeing it spring to life.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi David,

 

I managed to fit in a centre siding between the platforms in my design:

 

post-32492-0-41219000-1523531275_thumb.png

 

I also updated the section to show the big traverser with it's false backscene:

post-32492-0-36526200-1523530665.png

 

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Phil, that's generally a more rational plan than most in the thread so far, but the throat is distinctly odd. Why is there no direct access from the down line to platform 2? This means that only trains arriving into platform 1 can do so without blocking the up line. For reference the 1938 OS survey of Enfield is on the NLS site here and below is my rough sketch of Enfield Town station from the 1988 Quail.

 

post-6813-0-55925500-1523532209_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Phil, that's generally a more rational plan than most in the thread so far, but the throat is distinctly odd. Why is there no direct access from the down line to platform 2? This means that only trains arriving into platform 1 can do so without blocking the up line. For reference the 1938 OS survey of Enfield is on the NLS site here and below is my rough sketch of Enfield Town station from the 1988 Quail.

 

attachicon.gifStudio_20180412_121911.jpg

Yes, I realised that the platform 2 entry was a bit daft after I posted.

 

A double slip in place of the large radius left would be much more sensible. Er, hold on...

 

Revised:

post-32492-0-71470000-1523535321_thumb.png

Edited by Harlequin
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...