Majorbrough -- space, Minories, and Hornby TT track

[D9020 Nimbus]

In the pre-HST days, empty coaching stock for departing trains at a terminus would be brought in by other locos from the carriage sidings and the train loco would reverse onto (what would be) the front end of the train. I remember noticing at King's  Cross that most of the trains ready to depart had a class 31 standing at the buffer stops.

 

Now in steam days, what would that engine be? Depends on where in the country your layout is set, of course, but I'd have thought a passenger tank loco such as an N2, N7, L1 or V1/3 on the ex-LNER,  might be likely.

[Hroth]

10 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

In the pre-HST days, empty coaching stock for departing trains at a terminus would be brought in by other locos from the carriage sidings and the train loco would reverse onto (what would be) the front end of the train. I remember noticing at King's  Cross that most of the trains ready to depart had a class 31 standing at the buffer stops.

 

Now in steam days, what would that engine be? Depends on where in the country your layout is set, of course, but I'd have thought a passenger tank loco such as an N2, N7, L1 or V1/3 on the ex-LNER,  might be likely.

 

Depending on the class/frequency of the service, another loco of the same type would buffer up at the far end and take the next service out.  The loco that had been at the head would then follow the departing train out and either go and sit on a spur, waiting for its next duty or move off to an engine depot to coal, water and turn before backing in to take another train out.

 

An express service would have its carriages pulled into the platform by a "small" tank loco, in GWR speak, this would be a pannier of the 57xx or 94xx classes.

 

This is where TT120 Minories would have a problem. There are no appropriate tanks to relieve the Big Pacifics that are currently in production!

 

[Flying Pig]

You can release the engine of an incoming train by shunting the carriages to another platform.  If you want more storage space, put a carriage siding with servicing platform alongside the bay.  The station pilot is not trapped at the buffers by this movement.  If you want to get involved with empty stock movements in and out of the station, then you will certainly need a decently capacious fiddle yard.

[britishcolumbian]

21 minutes ago, Hroth said:

This is where TT120 Minories would have a problem. There are no appropriate tanks to relieve the Big Pacifics that are currently in production!

Yet.

[woodenhead]

A green 08 could do the job and it would be fine in the 1950s

 

As long as Hornby keep to a theme and don't go off on a Midland, Western or Southern frenzy (which could happen, and will eventually) then eventually they will arrive at an LNER tank engine but it could take some time.

[NCB]

3 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Something pertinent to note, this railway currently has no turning facility for the locos - does the A3 have a front coupling, the A4 certainly doesn't so you will need to turn locos.

 

If your return loop is to hold trains, it cannot also double as a means to turn the locos, either a turntable or a second return loop is needed.

Return loop is to turn trains/locos. Holding trains is just a possibility.

[NCB]

3 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

It's probably worth remembering that CJF drew Minories with a particular kind of operation in mind, which did not include the variety of trains most of us want to operate.  In the original context, a return loop works well as you only need a two or three trains of suburban carriages to represent an intensive service.  Assuming that the loop holds one train, the capacity is at most three trains, leaving either the loop or one platform free at all times to avoid gumming the whole thing up.

 

Trains are continuously moving through the loop rather than being stored there as in the standard fiddle yard.  Carriages stay in the platform until they depart as another train, releasing the loco that brought them in. Locos are tank engines and don't need turning so just go to the loco spur between duties and shunt directly to their next train.  In effect, the station acts as its own fiddle yard and the loop is just a means of returning trains to it with a small delay.

 

With this operational model it is quite possible to use the loop to turn locos, fitting them in between trains. 

 

However, if what is really wanted is a traditional fiddle yard where a variety of trains can be stored for an extended period, then that is probably a better solution than a return loop.

Question of space. This matches Hornby's vcurrent limited offering.

[melmoth]

7 hours ago, NCB said:

Reckon adding flexibility is no bad thing; it's up to you  how you use it.

 

 Me, I'd base it in the 1950s, and be influenced  by what Hornby actually produces. A rake or two of mk 1 coaches is a must, but what about parcels, sleepers, excursions?  The  exttra platform and siding could be used for such stuff.

 

Yes, I agree, but there's a difference between adding more flexibility and just adding more platforms and sidings - particularly if those platforms and sidings are more difficult to access and use than what you already have. If anything, to get more flexibility I think you might need an additional arrival platform rather than a departure platform or a carriage siding. As you state in a following post:

 

On 12/02/2023 at 14:33, NCB said:

Norm would probably be

1. Express arrives, loco detaches      
2. Shunter attaches, pulls coaches to offstage carriage sidings  (headshunt or loop) for servicing
3. Train loco  heads offstage

 

My highlighting in the quote. If that's the normal means of operation, why the need to bother with an additional on-stage carriage siding?

 

Since it's obviously possible to add a fourth platform, why not work that around the carriage siding space? It is already accessible to incoming trains in your Plan B, and if you're going to remove the stock off-stage to free up the train loco, then it's more flexible than having your fourth platform as departure only. That would also allow the top road to function as a loco stabling point as in the original plan.

[Flying Pig]

13 minutes ago, melmoth said:

My highlighting in the quote. If that's the normal means of operation, why the need to bother with an additional on-stage carriage siding?

 

 

I think the plan as drawn works more smoothly if the offstage siding is used as a headshunt, just representing the outbound main line up to the advanced starter.  A number of problems arise if you leave carriages in it, not least that it isn't then available for shunting the station while the loop is occupied.  To me, an on-stage carriage siding seems a better idea in this specific case where off-stage space is so limited.

[melmoth]

13 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I think the plan as drawn works more smoothly if the offstage siding is used as a headshunt, just representing the outbound main line up to the advanced starter.  A number of problems arise if you leave carriages in it, not least that it isn't then available for shunting the station while the loop is occupied.  To me, an on-stage carriage siding seems a better idea in this specific case where off-stage space is so limited.

 

In which case, I'd suggest swapping the departure platform in @NCB's Plan B with the carriage siding, to give four platforms that can be used for both arrivals and departures. Like this:

 

 

Edited February 14, 2023 by melmoth
adding image

[NCB]

14 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I think the plan as drawn works more smoothly if the offstage siding is used as a headshunt, just representing the outbound main line up to the advanced starter.  A number of problems arise if you leave carriages in it, not least that it isn't then available for shunting the station while the loop is occupied.  To me, an on-stage carriage siding seems a better idea in this specific case where off-stage space is so limited.

Exactly.

[NCB]

1 hour ago, melmoth said:

 

In which case, I'd suggest swapping the departure platform in @NCB's Plan B with the carriage siding, to give four platforms that can be used for both arrivals and departures. Like this:

 

 

Fine with that. Me, I've no problem with departure only platforms; the prototype had them. On plan B I'd use the bottom platform mainly for arrivals, and the middle two for both.

 

Whatever, it seems that 222 cm is a reasonable estimate for this sort of layout, and  the question moves to offstage options.

 

 

 

[NCB]

Fiddle yard  -  Option 2

 

 

A typical cassette storage scheme; I've shown one cassette which will comfortably take 5 coaches, and one fpr a loco.   Advantages; very flexible.  Disadvantages; a lot of work shuffling cassettes.

 

Length is 150 cm, giving a layout length of 372 cm. Could use option 1x to turn it round the corner,  giving an L shaped layout of 277 cm by 205 cm. 

[melmoth]

6 hours ago, NCB said:

Fine with that. Me, I've no problem with departure only platforms; the prototype had them. On plan B I'd use the bottom platform mainly for arrivals, and the middle two for both.

 

Whatever, it seems that 222 cm is a reasonable estimate for this sort of layout, and  the question moves to offstage options.

 

 

 

 

Two final observations:

 

1. The station pilot siding could be extended to join the carriage siding. This doesn't really give any massive operational benefits, but it would mean that stock could be propelled straight into the carriage siding without have to go through a reverse curve. Assuming that no other loco is occupying that space.

2. Nothing wrong with denominating platforms for arrival or departure - it makes good operational sense. But your Plan B seemed to have a departure platform simply because that platform could not be accessed by incoming trains.

[melmoth]

3 hours ago, NCB said:

Fiddle yard  -  Option 2

 

 

A typical cassette storage scheme; I've shown one cassette which will comfortably take 5 coaches, and one fpr a loco.   Advantages; very flexible.  Disadvantages; a lot of work shuffling cassettes.

 

Length is 150 cm, giving a layout length of 372 cm. Could use option 1x to turn it round the corner,  giving an L shaped layout of 277 cm by 205 cm. 

 

How much space have you got available? I quite liked your return loop plan - so would you have space to combine both cassettes and return loop by bringing everything through 90 degrees, and then running straight storages roads through the middle and looping the main line around them?

[woodenhead]

29 minutes ago, melmoth said:

 

How much space have you got available? I quite liked your return loop plan - so would you have space to combine both cassettes and return loop by bringing everything through 90 degrees, and then running straight storages roads through the middle and looping the main line around them?

It is neat, but it does take up a bit of space even in TT, whereas cassettes are nice and narrow.

 

Of course with an L shape, perhaps more through storage roads all leading onto the return loop plus one cassette line so not every train has to be lifted and not every train needs to be fiddled with - best of both worlds.

[melmoth]

15 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

It is neat, but it does take up a bit of space even in TT, whereas cassettes are nice and narrow.

 

Of course with an L shape, perhaps more through storage roads all leading onto the return loop plus one cassette line so not every train has to be lifted and not every train needs to be fiddled with - best of both worlds.

 

I managed to get to this - admittedly not cassette based, but (hopefully) combining the benefits of a return loop and a decent amount of storage. Four of the sidings should hold the same length train as the platforms. Point A connects to the on-stage boards. A bit of finessing or flexitrack needed at points B and C. The arrangement at B allows a light engine to run off-stage, around the loop and then into the fiddle yard to drop onto another train.

 

I think that gives an L of roughly 275 along one side and 230 on the other, with a maximum width of 76 on the shorter side (return loop) and 32 on the longer (on-stage) side

 

 

[idd15]

I’d just like to say a big thank you to @NCB for starting this thread and everyone else for their contributions. I’ve learnt a great deal about reading track plans, planning and operations.

 

Now the discussion has travelled towards the fiddle yard a question that has always vexed me is why not have a scenic fiddle yard, if indeed it’s a workable solution? Having seen some remarkable fiddle yards at exhibitions it has always struck me that they can be very expensive in terms of real estate and track etc. In the “spirit of TT” could a fiddle yard do double duty?

 

It did strike me that a “Minories” could double as a fiddle yard for another layout. Just a thought that I hope is not seen as heresy! 😀

 

Thx

idd

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, idd15 said:

It did strike me that a “Minories” could double as a fiddle yard for another layout. Just a thought that I hope is not seen as heresy! 

 

Just to point out to those who may not be aware of it that there is a fairly long running thread on Minories, though sadly most of the images have been nuked (but some may be retrievable if you ask the posters nicely).  That very topic was explored in some depth around page 40.

 

 

[RobinofLoxley]

8 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Just to point out to those who may not be aware of it that there is a fairly long running thread on Minories, though sadly most of the images have been nuked (but some may be retrievable if you ask the posters nicely).  That very topic was explored in some depth around page 40.

 

 

Lol I couldn't help wondering as the variations came out who had read the original thread. One of the plans here is nearly identical to one by Schooner but of course it's been lost. So this thread could run and run. It's only a different scale after all the principles are identical.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

10 hours ago, idd15 said:

I’d just like to say a big thank you to @NCB for starting this thread and everyone else for their contributions. I’ve learnt a great deal about reading track plans, planning and operations.

 

Now the discussion has travelled towards the fiddle yard a question that has always vexed me is why not have a scenic fiddle yard, if indeed it’s a workable solution? Having seen some remarkable fiddle yards at exhibitions it has always struck me that they can be very expensive in terms of real estate and track etc. In the “spirit of TT” could a fiddle yard do double duty?

 

It did strike me that a “Minories” could double as a fiddle yard for another layout. Just a thought that I hope is not seen as heresy! 😀

 

Thx

idd

The question of a scenic fiddle yard is a good one to explore.  
 

If there is no room for a scenic run between the ends of a layout, an unscenicked or hidden fiddle yard may make more sense, particularly if some shunting moves require trains to go off-stage.  It rather destroys the illusion if light engines or empty carriage stock movements suddenly pop up at the other end of the line, so (ironically perhaps) having an unscenicked fiddle yard can be an effective way to present the terminus modelled as being connected to the rest of the railway network.

 

Incidentally, Americans use the term “staging yards”, as a lot goes on behind the scenes in a theatre.

 

If you want to run a wide variety of trains into and out of a terminus, a fiddle yard may again make more sense, as it has extra capacity (as in @melmoth’s example above), and can allow stock to be switched around.

 

If however the model is of a branch line, and there is some room between ends, then the “other end” is always the same Junction Station, so why not make it a scenic model ( @KNP’s “Little Muddle” is a superb example here on RMweb).

 

Or, if you’re modelling a commuter line, the same might apply, although I’d want some connection point and perhaps a “staging siding” representing the interchange with everywhere else.  Heritage lines, some industrial lines, and Narrow Gauge lines may also work well without a fiddle yard, depending on how you like to operate and what you want to include.

 

On a small point to point layout there is the risk operating can start to feel like a slow motion game of table tennis, but it’s all about what you want.  Personally, I’m not a fan of fiddle yards, but I like continuous run layouts anyway.  Finally, I do rather like the Continental term often used for fiddle yards - calling them “shadow stations.”  Very appropriate.  Hope that helps.

 

9 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Just to point out to those who may not be aware of it that there is a fairly long running thread on Minories, though sadly most of the images have been nuked (but some may be retrievable if you ask the posters nicely).  That very topic was explored in some depth around page 40.

 

 

 

Indeed.  Good to have the link here even if a lot of pictures have now gone (I know I didn’t keep many of mine), Keith.

[Hobby]

On 13/02/2023 at 16:57, Hroth said:

 

An express service would have its carriages pulled into the platform by a "small" tank loco, in GWR speak, this would be a pannier of the 57xx or 94xx class

 

In view of (Triang-)Hornby's heritage in 00 and TT3 I feel that I should mention that I'm sure I've seen photos of Jintys doing this job on the old LMS! 

[NCB]

19 hours ago, melmoth said:

 

I managed to get to this - admittedly not cassette based, but (hopefully) combining the benefits of a return loop and a decent amount of storage. Four of the sidings should hold the same length train as the platforms. Point A connects to the on-stage boards. A bit of finessing or flexitrack needed at points B and C. The arrangement at B allows a light engine to run off-stage, around the loop and then into the fiddle yard to drop onto another train.

 

I think that gives an L of roughly 275 along one side and 230 on the other, with a maximum width of 76 on the shorter side (return loop) and 32 on the longer (on-stage) side

 

 

Like it.  Could you squeeze in some loco  spurs, say  around B?  

[melmoth]

3 hours ago, NCB said:

Like it.  Could you squeeze in some loco  spurs, say  around B?  

 

Cheers, thank you. There are always things that occur to you just after you've finished something and this is no exception. First of all, the revised plan below is extended to 250cm in order to put a length of straight track between the turnouts at the entrance to the storage roads. This means than any loco that needs to be reversed at this point is not brought to a halt across two (possibly) dead frog points. After a bit of consideration, I've added two sets of loco storage roads at the top and bottom of the fiddle yard. You probably wouldn't need both, so they're really an either/or choice (although let's face it, you can never have too much space for stock). Both options mean that light engines can run to the 'shed' without having to go round the return loop. It might be worth keeping the the link off the return loop to the fiddle yard just in case, but I'm not sure now if it's really necessary.  If you do get rid of the link from the return loop, you'd obviously have more space for storage roads. Maybe to store special stock, like a breakdown crane or a snow plough. Personally, I'd opt to have the loco sidings at the top of the yard (as viewed), but  having them at the bottom makes them more accessible for handling. Incidentally, I think the return loop on its own can hold three full trains depending on how it's wired up, but that sort of thing is above my pay grade.

 

 

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

17 hours ago, melmoth said:

Personally, I'd opt to have the loco sidings at the top of the yard (as viewed), but  having them at the bottom makes them more accessible for handling.

If I might piggy back onto @melmoth’s suggestion, I’d go for the loco sidings at the front for ease of accessibility - I may be able to lean over to place a loco on the further tracks, but when it’s clear one wheelset is not properly on the rails, being able to see at rail level which one it is can be very helpful.  I’d also recommend the near side for tender engines - but if you can afford the points why not have both and use the further ones for Station Pilots / 0-6-0 locos (a Class 08 for example).

 

Having said previously I’m not a fan of fiddle yards (or reverse loops for that matter), I think this suggestion could change my mind, especially in TT, as it is more compact.  Keep up the good work, Keith.

 

Edited February 16, 2023 by Keith Addenbrooke
Typo