Station Terminus

[Wag]

I would be grateful for thoughts on the draft layout, so not making too many beginner errors.

 

I have recently been given the licence to use the spare room to develop a layout, after years on an 8'x4' oval. I am looking at an end to end running 3 sides of the room. I want to get started therefore the station terminus will be the 1st side completed. I have attached track plan.

 

Period - 1970's, it is very, very loosely based on Essex -  Barking station to Dagenham, although Barking will be a terminus will Intercity trains (I know! - if only), The plan will also include a TMD and goods yard with access to an industrial area, although this is still in pipeline. It will be DCC run.

 

Looking at the station the bottom two tracks are for Intercity, top two for goods/parcels and the middle for suburban services.

 

I have planned using PECO track with 11 degree short turnouts for the first time, previously only used Hornby not sure over clearance between tracks.

 

Again thoughts gratefully received - when I have learnt to load the picture! Apologies can't seem to paste directly so have attached. 

 

 

Draft Layout station.docx

[cromptonnut]

Firstly, welcome

 

I note your question re clearance, Peco make a useful track spacer gauge which allows you to set either streamline or setrack spacing.  By "11 degree" do you mean the streamline or setrack points?  What's the code number?

 

I assume your two left tracks are the main lines, and the inner one goes to your TMD/goods?  If that's a curved setrack point you are using, some things do struggle to go round them, depending on what you are running.  If it's the TMD then that's ok but I'm not sure about the goods facility, freight trains wouldn't normally go into a terminus then reverse out into a yard. Reality often has less restraints when it comes to fitting things into spaces than our spare rooms!

 

It's an intersting plan, and not too dissimilar to something I planned some years back.  Being 1970's you would still have 'speedlink' type pickup freights and parcel services.  Are there run-rounds off the map?

 

You do seem to have rather a lot there on an 8x4 oval - have you planned the rest of the room out yet to size or just this corner of the station throat? 

[Wag]

Ta for the welcome and your post

 

Points are SL-91 and 92 Code 100.

 

You are right regarding curved point, I thought it gave me more space as it seems neat on paper, but I did have a problem once previously and should have learnt.

Spot on regarding speedlink, parcels and newspapers. This is just the one side of the room approx 10' x 3' board with throat as shown and terminus. I do need to work on the goods yard and TMD.

 

As regards run rounds - I would appreciate guidance as i do not clearly remember practice from 1970's. I assumed probably incorrectly that any diesel loco haul at a terminus would, other than DMU/EMU, be picked up by another diesel from the loco standing in the station and the diesel in platform would be re-assigned. 

 

Thanks again and I will invest in track space gauge.

[The Johnster]

There were termini and termini when it came to operating practice; bigger ones would be more likely to use the 'top and tail' method where loco hauled stock arrives and is then removed by another loco which forms the next service or hauls the stock away to carriage sidings, releasing the original loco.

 

A smaller terminus would be less likely to have a depot handy with locos available for this sort of thing, and a run around movement so that the same loco works the train back out again.  This is general guidance and not hard and fast rules, and your operating method is up to you.  Top and tailing takes a little less space, though, at the cost of more movements to cope with.

 

I have had no trouble with curved points, and like the feeling of natural flowing trackwork that can be achieved with them, but if you are using insulfrogs you will need to be very fussy about pickups, as the dead frogs are very long.   

[DCB]

I find the best way to upload is a screen shot as a Jpeg or similar.  Minories by CJ Freezer is very hard to beat as a basis for a small/ medium terminus  Actually 5 platforms is a big one by GWR standards, there was Paddington, and, er, well there must have been others Swansea 4, Cheltenham, 4 Weymouth pre BR 4....

 

I would avoid set track type points.  Peco are better than Hornby but they have no advantage over peco streamline small radius points being as long and giving wider track spacing.  Set track is great for chucking a load of track on the lounge floor and building a layout which will last until bed time.  Modern coaches with body mounted couplings don't like set track points, many modern RTR steam locos can't get round them as they are often 15" radius through the point blades and even the nominal 18" radius is very tight

 

Track spacing is 60mm for set track and 52 mm (2 in) for streamline but you can come down to 45mm on the straights so 6 sidings will fit in 1ft width

 

As regards the track layout 1970s is basically steam era with some of it ripped up.   BR ran everything, dedicated Inter city and suburban platforms were generally some way in the future.   Normally 4 platforms would be two arrival and two departure. The arrival platforms can usually be used for departures but there will not normally be access to the departure platforms for arrivals.   Most stations dealt with parcels at the main platforms, dedicated parcels platforms were usually the result of closing redundant platforms to passengers/

.

Typical operation I/C train arrives with clapped out class 31 and 5 Mk 1s  Porbably 4 TSOs and a BFK Gronk wobbles onto the back after driver finishes his cup of tea and pulls coaches off onto departure line and then sets the coaches back into a carriage siding or departure platform. 31 follows train and slopes off to TMD where it is declared a failure. Coaches are then cleaned at platform ready for departure.  DMU arrives at arrival platform about an hour later and later departs from the same platform

 

You need enough main line clear of the points to pull the stock out and set back and make sure there are no reverse curves to reverse over or there will be derailments, Minories is the textbook solution to this issue and would be a very good starting point for a layout.  In the 1970s there was still quite a lot of sundries traffic carried in short 12t covered vans and dealt with in goods sheds many of which were huge. this might be a good way of having freight as the old staple (House)  Coal was dwindling rapidly

 

To make it look good keep curves flowing especially through pointwork, keep the platforms low, many modellers have them too high, below the middle of the buffers scale 3ft  3" is right as platforms were 3ft max,   Squeeze down the track centres makes more room for platforms.  Don't hide half of it in a train shed so you can't uncouple or see the uncoupling ramps What looks good are parallel moves, especially an arrival as a Gronk pushes ECS back into a platform so plan for as many simultaneous moves as possible

 

 

I would definitely look at Minories.

[cromptonnut]

 

As regards run rounds - I would appreciate guidance as i do not clearly remember practice from 1970's. I assumed probably incorrectly that any diesel loco haul at a terminus would, other than DMU/EMU, be picked up by another diesel from the loco standing in the station and the diesel in platform would be re-assigned. 

 

In the rationalisation that you refer to, many locations would have lost their shunters and depots by then, so you might have - like Skegness, for example, 12 very long carriage sidings but only two useable and the rest under several feet of grass.  However the fact that you have a goods yard/freight depot planned would probably have meant that there would have been at least one shunter retained but that wouldn't necessarily have been always available for passenger release.  You would have been 'pre-Sprinter' back then but there would still have been a number of DMU's that didn't need running round or releasing.  Very busy city termini might have "train loco becomes the loco for the next train once it's been released" principle but I am not sure that would quite work for your plan.

 

I've always liked the 'centre road' with a 3 way point in a terminus.  You just need to make sure that there's enough space between the end of the middle of the three way point and the buffer stop for your longest loco (where I've put the purple dot).  In this arrangement, the loco would set back the train slightly to be free of the point uncouple, then run forward into the middle headshunt then down through the middle road,and back onto the platform to couple up to the train then push back in towards the buffer stops.  It might work well for your intercity section?

 

 

 

Thanks again and I will invest in track space gauge.

 

They are not expensive at all   Peco SL-36 is the code, any model shop should stock them as they are a low value but very useful item.

 

I agree with DavidCBroad, Minories as a layout takes a lot of beating.  It has been copied by many people, and many have tried to better it, but the simplicity and flexibility are very clear once you start exploring opportunities.  This page has some interesting comments and variations.  https://esngblog.com/2016/12/18/minories-1-the-original-design/

Edited May 27, 2018 by cromptonnut

[Flying Pig]

You would have been 'pre-Sprinter' back then but there would still have been a number of DMU's that didn't need running round or releasing.

DMUs were the default diesel passenger train for the 1970s, despite our near obsession with locomotives, and you could run many a small to medium-sized terminus with almost nothing else. There was actually a slight swing back to loco hauled trains on some secondary services towards the end of the decade and into the 80s as 1st generation DMUs began to wear out, which continued due to problems with newly introduced Sprinters. I think this gives a false impression to people with memories of the late 80s and 90s that the multiple unit revolution began then. It didn't - it happened thirty years earlier (a hundred years earlier on electrified lines). Moral of the story - more multiple units. [/rant]

 

Very busy city termini might have "train loco becomes the loco for the next train once it's been released" principle but I am not sure that would quite work for your plan.

The most common method at larger termini, perhaps because diesels and electrics didn't need servicing between trains as steam had.

 

I've always liked the 'centre road' with a 3 way point in a terminus.  You just need to make sure that there's enough space between the end of the middle of the three way point and the buffer stop for your longest loco (where I've put the purple dot).  In this arrangement, the loco would set back the train slightly to be free of the point uncouple, then run forward into the middle headshunt then down through the middle road,and back onto the platform to couple up to the train then push back in towards the buffer stops.  It might work well for your intercity section?

 

 

 

This looks the wrong way round to me. Usually the loco would set back over release points. Can you cite an example?

[Wag]

Ta for responses.

 

The 3-way point is a really graceful solution and can offer more operating potential as well.

 

I am always interested in the goods element and I appreciate the temptation to hide in a shed, usually due to my modelling skills. this was my original thought but after looking at examples, I'll keep it open, its not for an exhibition. Never thought about height of platform having just used the metcalfe ones straight from the packet but will look at this again.

 

DavidC - I was planning on streamline but do not understand your point  Peco are better than Hornby but they have no advantage over peco streamline small radius points, I thought the SL 90 and 91 were the streamline ones? Apologies if being a bit thick.

 

I do have an old copy of 60 plans for small railways and Minories was my initial starting point but found it was difficult to make it work as I wanted something a bit larger. Using the same layout structure to add platforms created greater complication and appeared to reduce platform lengths in the space I had available. I do not claim to be an expert - and hope I have not committed heresy!

[cromptonnut]

This looks the wrong way round to me. Usually the loco would set back over release points. Can you cite an example?

 

It was a quick post from memory, I may well be wrong.  The principle remains even with the arrangement the other way round.

[Chimer]

Ta for responses.

 

The 3-way point is a really graceful solution and can offer more operating potential as well.

 

I am always interested in the goods element and I appreciate the temptation to hide in a shed, usually due to my modelling skills. this was my original thought but after looking at examples, I'll keep it open, its not for an exhibition. Never thought about height of platform having just used the metcalfe ones straight from the packet but will look at this again.

 

DavidC - I was planning on streamline but do not understand your point  Peco are better than Hornby but they have no advantage over peco streamline small radius points, I thought the SL 90 and 91 were the streamline ones? Apologies if being a bit thick.

 

I do have an old copy of 60 plans for small railways and Minories was my initial starting point but found it was difficult to make it work as I wanted something a bit larger. Using the same layout structure to add platforms created greater complication and appeared to reduce platform lengths in the space I had available. I do not claim to be an expert - and hope I have not committed heresy!

 

He means "Peco Set-track are better than Hornby but they have no advantage over peco streamline small radius points"

[Flying Pig]

 

I do have an old copy of 60 plans for small railways and Minories was my initial starting point but found it was difficult to make it work as I wanted something a bit larger. Using the same layout structure to add platforms created greater complication and appeared to reduce platform lengths in the space I had available. I do not claim to be an expert - and hope I have not committed heresy!

We do have a bit of a thing about Minories on RMweb and there a lot of threads covering it. They're worth a look as they tend to pull in other similar ideas as well. Here are some good ones I found quickly, but there are plenty more - just search for "Minories"!

 

A couple that actually got built:

 

Minories 1983 (BR blue period)

 

Birmingham Hope St (BR 1965)

 

And the rest

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/60091-00-minories-track-plan-wanted (25 pages)

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/78492-minories-holborn-viaduct (13 pages)

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/131100-is-minories-operationally-satisfying

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/131901-minories-steam-or-diesel

[Wag]

We do have a bit of a thing about Minories on RMweb and there a lot of threads covering it. They're worth a look as they tend to pull in other similar ideas as well. Here are some good ones I found quickly, but there are plenty more - just search for "Minories"!

 

A couple that actually got built:

 

Minories 1983 (BR blue period)

 

Birmingham Hope St (BR 1965)

 

And the rest

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/60091-00-minories-track-plan-wanted (25 pages)

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/78492-minories-holborn-viaduct (13 pages)

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/131100-is-minories-operationally-satisfying

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/131901-minories-steam-or-diesel

Many thanks - been away and now taking a quick look.

 

Thanks to everyone for their help.

[danstercivicman]

We do have a bit of a thing about Minories on RMweb and there a lot of threads covering it. They're worth a look as they tend to pull in other similar ideas as well. Here are some good ones I found quickly, but there are plenty more - just search for "Minories"!

 

A couple that actually got built:

 

Minories 1983 (BR blue period)

 

Birmingham Hope St (BR 1965)

 

And the rest

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/60091-00-minories-track-plan-wanted (25 pages)

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/78492-minories-holborn-viaduct (13 pages)

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/131100-is-minories-operationally-satisfying

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/131901-minories-steam-or-diesel

 

Hello,

 

Thank you very much for the kind links/remarks. Birmingham Hope St provided hours of fun and is currently sat in my father in laws attic until I can start again in the new house

 

You can't really beat minories and I added milk and fish/meat traffic to keep it interesting

 

I need more DMU's....