Terminus Station Approach

[BluenGreyAnorak]

I'm in the process of building a layout that will include a large-ish four platform terminus station. I've come up with a design for the approach pointwork and wondered if anybody could cast their eyes over it to see if there are any glaring non-prototypical gaffs or obvious improvements that could be made? The scale is 00 and all of the points are Peco large radius.

 

 

The design started out with Minories-esque pointwork but I revised it to include the scissor crossing, partly because I liked it and partly because it is slighty more compact in length. The bottom platform will be for parcels traffic and there is a crossing providing a run-round facility near the buffer stops. Similary, the centre road marked 'storage' also has a crossing connecting it to the road immediately above at the far end.

 

The bottom three platforms will be long enough for a loco plus 6 coaches or an HST 2+5 set. The upper platform will be slightly shorter and I envisage DMU traffic using that one.

 

The era I'm aiming for is late '70's and the location is a fictious north Devon coastal town formerly on the GWR. I'm assuming that some rationalisation has taken place in that the old steam sheds have been updated and simplified by way of the modern re-fueling/stabling area at the bottom left. At this stage, that area is just a 'proof of concept' to show that what I want will fit in the space and the final layout may change.

 

The station will see predominantly loco-hauled services, with the odd DMU for local traffic, but the chosen era is deliberately on the cusp of HST services too.

 

What do you think, folks?

[Stubby47]

As I understand it, the beauty of Minories was it removed the S-like snaking of coaches through the station throat. Trains leaving Platform 2 (reading top to bottom on your plan) will have at least 2 reverse curves to go through before the main line proper - this may, given you are using long points not be a visual problem, but might be worth bearing in mind.

 

HTH

 

Stu

[eastwestdivide]

Pilot loco siding in the corner to the L of the signal box would give it better access for releasing locos from all roads, if that's the idea.

[Bruce Depot]

I would have been tempted to put two carrige sidings where you show the pilot loco stabling point. With a storage siding

between the platforms, the pilot loco could sit there if required or else on one of the carrige siding lines?

 

otherwise looks good.

 

Keith

[Guest jim s-w]

Hiya

 

Its a bit Plymouth-ey! See http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=plymouth&sll=50.426776,-3.562658&sspn=0.001307,0.003712&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Plymouth,+Devon,+United+Kingdom&ll=50.377448,-4.145912&spn=0.002617,0.007424&t=h&z=18

 

I appreciate that you want a scissors crossing and its your layout but always remember track in the real world is expensive and given your plan there is no way a railway company would buy something so expensive unless they really need to. Watch you don't do what a lot of railway modellers do and over elaborate your track work for no reason.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Oldddudders]

Slightly baffled here. This is still a steam-age layout, yet there is no run-round anywhere. The pilot loco siding seems to offer a pull off - for the platform you intend to use for DMUs! The number of termini with a two-track approach and 4 platforms in Devon and Cornwall was not enormous, because a few Summer Saturdays per year didn't justify it. Minories was designed for metropolitan intensive running in LT&S/GE fashion, so I'm not convinced it's the ideal basis for a West Country setting. As J S-W has pointed out, scissors are not a common feature of rural railways, and as I've mentioned on here before, when the decision was taken to renew the scissors outside Fenchurch St in the early 1990s, as part of the resignalling of the entire LT&S, there were some misgivings over its maintenance costs and reliability.

 

My recommendations would be for a single track main-line, and simply doing that will reduce the complexity, as J S-W has suggested. The saved running line could become a useful carriage siding, with cleaning and watering facilities etc, so additional modelling opportunities. Then find a suitable location for a runround.

[Edwin_m]

Dunno, it looks a bit like Plymouth Friary though from a quick Google I can't tell whether it had a scissors crossover. Not GWR of course!

 

http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/p/plymouth_friary/index.shtml

 

I think the OP's plan just shows the station throat so the release crossovers are off to the right.

[The Stationmaster]

Slightly baffled here. This is still a steam-age layout, yet there is no run-round anywhere. The pilot loco siding seems to offer a pull off - for the platform you intend to use for DMUs! The number of termini with a two-track approach and 4 platforms in Devon and Cornwall was not enormous, because a few Summer Saturdays per year didn't justify it. Minories was designed for metropolitan intensive running in LT&S/GE fashion, so I'm not convinced it's the ideal basis for a West Country setting. As J S-W has pointed out, scissors are not a common feature of rural railways, and as I've mentioned on here before, when the decision was taken to renew the scissors outside Fenchurch St in the early 1990s, as part of the resignalling of the entire LT&S, there were some misgivings over its maintenance costs and reliability.

 

My recommendations would be for a single track main-line, and simply doing that will reduce the complexity, as J S-W has suggested. The saved running line could become a useful carriage siding, with cleaning and watering facilities etc, so additional modelling opportunities. Then find a suitable location for a runround.

 

I'm very much with Jim and Ian on the question of the scissors crossover - it stood out like a sore thumb even before I read you were talking about WR late '70s (at which point I fully decided it was way ott), and it also throws out the track centres.

 

I would also go with Ian's single line recommendation - far more likely for period and I think it will look better overall - but it's your trainset, and if you really like scissors (bloomin' nuisance) crossovers that's your decision .

[Karhedron]

Penzence featured 4 platforms and a scissor-cross-over until fairly recently. It would also fit your HST and DMU time-period (I think the Scissors were only removed quite recently). Check out a track-plan of Penzance from the 70s and you will probably be able to tweak it to suit your requirements while still looking prototypical.

 

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee199/Karhedronuk/penzance_signal.jpg

[Edwin_m]

Before resignalling in the 80s, Paignton had a scissors with only two platforms. No good reason for it that I could see, and it was replaced by two independent crossovers.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

I might do something like this. Rather than a full blown shed, just have a fuelling / stabling point. Have two separate crossovers at the station throat. Also I'd have the connection from the middle road joining the southern platform. Don't forget trap points at "C".

[BluenGreyAnorak]

Thanks for all of the replies chaps. The general concensus seems to be that the scissors crossover isn't the most appropriate, which is a shame. I thought it was a relatively straightforward arrangement, having no moving parts. Ho hum. I shall have to re-visit that and some of the other ideas too.

 

Just a quick point for Olddudders - the crossovers for run arounds are at the other end of the station. The picture just shows the approach trackwork otherwise it would all be too small to read easily.

[Oldddudders]

Just a quick point for Olddudders - the crossovers for run arounds are at the other end of the station. The picture just shows the approach trackwork otherwise it would all be too small to read easily.

Ok - humble pie eaten here!

[BluenGreyAnorak]

Ok folks, I've had a chance to think a bit more about this and have re-worked the plan. I've actually come up with two alternatives - one with a scissor crossing and one without, although even I'll admit that the latter looks better.

 

Anyway, here's the first alternative:

 

 

I was encouraged by the track plan for Penzance (thanks Karhedron) and so in this one I've re-aligned the main lines to remove the reverse curves whilst still retaining the scissors crossover. However, whilst it all works from a track geometry point of view, it just looks too symetrical and sterile. It also leaves much less space for my loco re-fueling point.

 

This is my second alternative:

 

 

In this one I've reverted to more conventional crossovers and, whilst there are more curves on the approach, it seems to flow more naturally. I've connected the central storage road to the road serving platform 3 as suggested by Western Sunset and the pilot loco might as well sit in the middle as Bruce Depot suggested too.

 

The platform sizes are really just indicative at this stage. In practice, platforms 3 & 4 will probably be wider than 1 & 2 to allow for the parcels operation that I want to include. For some reason, they seem to have come out looking the complete opposite.

 

Although I haven't re-drawn it here, I still like the idea of a modest shed area reached by a kick-back from the bottom road. This gives a bit more scope for shuffling the odd stores van as well as some fuel tanks, and provides a home for the pilot loco at the end of the day.

 

Whilst I appreciate the real world implausibility of a double track approach to a station in the suggested location, I'm going to play the IMTS card on this one. What I'm after is a layout with reasonably intense operational potential, as that's where my main interest lies, and the location is really just an excuse as I like western region trains and infrastructure

 

So, what do you think guys? One of the details that I'm not sure about is the need for catch points. On the photos of Plymouth Friary there's a catch point on the middle road, but it's not clear what the arragement is beyond that. Does the collective think I need such a thing on my proposed layout?

[bennyboy]

I'd say that your second alternative looks much better and more realistic as well.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

I'd stick with the double track; single wouldn't look right in my eyes.

[Karhedron]

I like the second layout plan too.

[The Stationmaster]

I much prefer the second alternative - definitely looks a bit more 'interesting'. The storage road does need a trap but technically in that situation it ought to be a wide-to-gauge trap but you won't easily find one of those to copy I suspect as they are increasingly rare birdies (but I have got a pic of an Australian one ).

[Peter Kazmierczak]

I much prefer the second alternative - definitely looks a bit more 'interesting'. The storage road does need a trap but technically in that situation it ought to be a wide-to-gauge trap but you won't easily find one of those to copy I suspect as they are increasingly rare birdies (but I have got a pic of an Australian one ).

 

Mike,

There's still one at Bournemouth, protecting the exit from one of the centre sidings. Looks like two point motors are needed; one for each blade.

[DavidB-AU]

Dunno, it looks a bit like Plymouth Friary

 

http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/p/plymouth_friary/index.shtml

Almost all the online photos of Plymouth Friary show the station from more or less the same angle, i.e. from the bridge. Short of a full track plan, a photo from the platforms looking towards the bridge should give a nice view of the station throat and how it relates to the goods yard.

 

Cheers

David

[BluenGreyAnorak]

Thanks once again chaps - the second layout it is then, with the addition of a trap point in the right place.

 

I'm just at the point of starting track laying on my new layout (should have started already but currently stuck in Spain awaiting a ferry in a few days ) and this part will probably be the last to be built, but I do like to have a plan

 

Just out of interest, why are scissor crossings treated with such scorn? I deliberately avoided using double-slips as I know they are a maintenance headache in the real world, but I thought a scissor would be ok as it doesn't have any moving parts?

[Flying Pig]

I found a diagram of Bournemouth West on www.signalbox.org. Interestingly, it has a double slip on the running line, two scissors and no loco release crossovers. Looks like an ideal prototype

[bennyboy]

I think it's because it features a crossover which while not having moving parts involves the use of frogs which add to the maintenance levels and the risk of derailments.

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks once again chaps - the second layout it is then, with the addition of a trap point in the right place.

 

I'm just at the point of starting track laying on my new layout (should have started already but currently stuck in Spain awaiting a ferry in a few days ) and this part will probably be the last to be built, but I do like to have a plan

 

Just out of interest, why are scissor crossings treated with such scorn? I deliberately avoided using double-slips as I know they are a maintenance headache in the real world, but I thought a scissor would be ok as it doesn't have any moving parts?

 

Well at least a ferry trip is a bit more interesting than being stuck in a cigar tube 30,000ft up in the ash layers. Hope it works out ok for you.

 

Scissors crossovers involve lots of things like wing rails, crossings, and check rails which do not like vibration and thus require careful (i.e expensive) maintenance attention plus they need non-standard parts. Add in long timbers, which can be a right pig to keep properly packed and supported and the whole thing loses its attraction. Not quite so bad in slow speed situations but even then avoided whenever possible and nowadays only used if there is no space for anything simpler.

[BluenGreyAnorak]

Ah, I didn't appreciate that. Thanks again - it's a real education, this model railway lark.

 

I hope the ferry crossing will be interesting - it takes about 30 hours and I've got my 5 year old twins to entertain