Is this model station and track configuration remotely realistic?

[n9]

This is for a layout I'm currently building, which will be running stock from the 1950s-60s.

 

The attached pic shows the portion of the layout in question.

 

Basically I'd like to know if having a single platform station like this is remotely realistic (setting aside typical modelling constraints like track density, tighter radii, etc.)

 

I'm reasonably sure that points that risk putting traffic in head-on collisions were/are avoided, but that there were some exceptions. I think I'm definitely hoping to board the exception boat with this one!

 

 

Some more detail:

 

I originally envisaged this station to be for a 2-car DMU to stop at, or maybe a small steamer with 1 or 2 coaches. However, space constraints mean I've had to bring the points closer together, and now probably only a bubble car would fit at the station without stopping across points. (The points shown are at the locations those space constraints have imposed.) The pink rectangle is the scale outline of my 2-car DMU. 

 

The tracks at A, D, F, H, G, and J, are directional, as shown by the arrows (chevrons.)

The track at E is bi-directional.

The route running through B, C, and up to J is bi-directional in certain circumstances (actually a little beyond J for goods trains), but most traffic originating from J is directional from J to D.

 

Routes that I see for the DMU (or trains stopping at the station) are:

E > B > C > D

A > B > C > D

H > C > B > E

H > C > B > F

H > C > B > G

J > C > B > E

J > C > B > G

J > C > B > F

 

 

Most through traffic will be:

 

A > G or A > F

J > D or H > D

E > G or E > F

 

But could also be:

 

J > E or H > E

 

Blimey! That's a lot of combinations! Many more than I realised! Are real railways this hard? 😉

 

The shape of the platform is illustrative. I'm happy to extend it in either direction if it makes sense, as well as shape it to match the profile of the track.

 

So, could this track and station arrangement work in real life, or is it completely wrong and an absolute no-no? Bonus points if you tell me whether it's okay for trains to span points when stopping at a station.

 

Any other comments/observations?

 

Thank you!

 

[Flying Pig]

Briefly I don't think a single platform would be enough but I can't really say any more as I don't understand why there are so many routes and why some of them are one way only. I can understand AF and HD together as a double track route and E as a single track branch line, but G and J don't make much sense to me.

 

Can you show us how this fits into the main layout?

[n9]

11 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

Can you show us how this fits into the main layout?

Yes, perhaps that wasn't clear from the image. Sorry.

 

It's essentially a double track route that forks. So if starting from the left, the double track comes in as A and D, and after the station it forks with F and H as one prong of the fork, and G and J as the other prong. Conceptually both prongs head off in different directions, in reality G and J eventually join back to A and D.

 

E and F/H will operate as end-to-end, so that will be a single track becoming a double track.

[Flying Pig]

21 minutes ago, n9 said:

Yes, perhaps that wasn't clear from the image. Sorry.

 

It's essentially a double track route that forks. So if starting from the left, the double track comes in as A and D, and after the station it forks with F and H as one prong of the fork, and G and J as the other prong. Conceptually both prongs head off in different directions, in reality G and J eventually join back to A and D.

 

E and F/H will operate as end-to-end, so that will be a single track becoming a double track.

 

Ok, so it's actually more like this?

 

 

I think you need two platforms but as you say they will be rather short.

 

Could you move both the crossover at BC and the double junction leftwards by deleting the pink section and then put a four platform station on the lines to the right of the junction?

 

You should also flip the siding round so that it joins the main line by a trailing point.

 

[adb968008]

ADE end is slightly reminiscent of Georgemas junction, especially with the yard.

 

 

 

Also down in Devon, the Okehampton and Barnstaple lines do run in paralell as two separate single track lines (the former DOWN being Okehampton, the UP being Barnstaple),  the result being although Okehampton trains pass through Yeoford, they cannot stop, as the platform is on the Up side and used bidirectional on Barnstaple trains.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeoford_railway_station

 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by adb968008

[n9]

17 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Ok, so it's actually more like this?

 

Yes, it is more like that. Modelling license is the reason G and J don't run closer together - I didn't want exactly parallel lines everywhere, and intend to have a scenic reason to make them diverge for a little bit.

 

I do want a small station there, since I have a bigger one elsewhere, and I am thinking only of short trains stopping there. Thinking about it more - and your reply has made me think about it in a way I hadn't before, so thank you for that - I think it's the operational interest of what would happen if there is only one platform, and whether the track I've put together for it caters for it in a way that isn't too outlandish.

 

So I suppose it's two things:

 

1. Is a single platform station just really odd to have on a double line? [I've just seen adb968008's answer though]

2. I like the idea of a short train stoppping at that station and then having to switch track to head back from where it came, and I'm just very curious if that's something that would happen on a real railway.

 

Good point about the siding. I'll definitely see if I can do something about reversing it.

 

21 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

ADE end is slightly reminiscent of Georgemas junction, especially with the yard.

 

 

 

Also down in Devon, the Okehampton and Barnstaple lines do run in paralell as two separate single track lines (the former DOWN being Okehampton, the UP being Barnstaple),  the result being although Okehampton trains pass through Yeoford, they cannot stop, as the platform is on the Up side and used bidirectional on Barnstaple trains.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeoford_railway_station

 

 

 

 

How very interesting! Thank you!!

[adb968008]

Its not beyond a stretch to have your single track services stop bidirectionally at the platform and continue in either direction, and have expresses running on the doubles.. maybe put remains of a platform on the other side.

 

There are a number of former mainlines that have been rundown and operate a bit unusual as a result.

Edited September 29, 2023 by adb968008

[n9]

4 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Its not beyond a stretch to have your single track services stop bidirectionally at the platform and continue in either direction, and have expresses running on the doubles.. maybe put remains of a platform on the other side.

 

Brilliant! At this rate, there'll be remains of a platform and a small statue and a plaque thanking you!

[Dungrange]

2 hours ago, n9 said:

Most through traffic will be:

 

A > G or A > F

J > D or H > D

E > G or E > F

 

But could also be:

 

J > E or H > E

 

By and large, there will be the same number of trains in each direction, so for each E to F service, there would be a corresponding H to E service.  If it wasn't that way, then you'd ultimately end up with an imbalance of trains and a lot of passengers unable to get home.

 

2 hours ago, n9 said:

Routes that I see for the DMU (or trains stopping at the station) are:

E > B > C > D

A > B > C > D

H > C > B > E

H > C > B > F

H > C > B > G

J > C > B > E

J > C > B > G

J > C > B > F

 

I don't see E > B > C > D nor A > B > C > D as being particularly likely.  If a train is going to terminate and return in the direction that it came from, the point work would normally be arranged so that the train could make the movement directly from the platform (eg through a trailing crossover at A/D).  If these movements have to be made, then they should be E > B > C > J > C > D and A > B > C > J > C > D.  A train can't leave the station, stop in the middle of a junction and change direction.  It would be signalled to depart from the platform and would have to traverse all of the point work and continue until it was past the home signal at J.  The train could then stop, the driver would change ends and head of towards D.

 

2 hours ago, n9 said:

I'm reasonably sure that points that risk putting traffic in head-on collisions were/are avoided, but that there were some exceptions. I think I'm definitely hoping to board the exception boat with this one!

 

Yes, facing crossovers (as you have at B/C) would generally have been avoided as much as possible in the steam era, but they did exist on some lines.  Ultimately you need the facing cross over so that trains approaching from the right can access the single track branch (E).  If you were running reasonably long freight trains via this route, it may be that the facing crossover was considered preferable to taking the trains to D then reversing into the platform to continue their journey.

 

2 hours ago, n9 said:

Bonus points if you tell me whether it's okay for trains to span points when stopping at a station.

 

The issue is more where the signals are placed.  If a train is approaching from A/E then it could sit over point B provided there was no intention to reverse trains at this location (ie E > B > C > J > C > D and A > B > C > J > C > D are not viable moves and neither would E > B > C > J  and A > B > C > J).  If that were the case, then the starting signal would be placed just before the point at which F and G diverge, in which case a unit sitting over point B would be okay.  However, if you want to be able to make any of the above moves, then the starter signal would be at the toe end of point B and sitting over the point would be less likely (ie the train would have to be cleared for departure before it was able to enter the station.  I see no reason why a train couldn't sit on your point connecting A and E as any train at your platform departing to the left must be heading towards E, which means the starting signal could be positioned accordingly.

 

2 hours ago, n9 said:

So, could this track and station arrangement work in real life, or is it completely wrong and an absolute no-no?

 

I think it's highly unlikely that such a station would have been constructed in real life.  Most stations on a double track line would have at least two platforms, so that they can serve trains in both directions.  I also don't think that trains would terminate at such a small station.  I think the only justification for the arrangement you have would be that it is only used by services E > B > F and the reverse trip H > C > B > E.  Any other passenger services would pass through non-stop.  There is little point in letting passengers off, if you can't provide a stopping service in the reverse direction.

 

I'm therefore proposing some long freight trains to/from E justifying the facing crossover, and some short branch line passenger service to/from E stopping at this location to justify the platform, with all other trains in the plan just running through without stopping.

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, n9 said:

Are real railways this hard? 😉

 

Yes, but they've usually got a lot more space to play with...

 

Would it fit in with your plans if the platform was an island platform, not uncommon where junctions like this were found in real life?  This might allow your 2-car dmu/loco & 2 coaches setup.  But I can't help making the comment that you are trying to get an awful lot of railway into a very small area, and that you may be tying yourself in knots as a result. 

 

Stations that used one platform face for traffic in both directions on double track routes are not unknown, especially in the early days of railway history, but were not common as the potential to delay traffic if one train is running out of course is considerable. 

 

 

[adb968008]

8 hours ago, Dungrange said:

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

Stations that used one platform face for traffic in both directions on double track routes are not unknown, especially in the early days of railway history, but were not common as the potential to delay traffic if one train is running out of course is considerable. 

 

 

I think it's highly unlikely that such a station would have been constructed in real life.  Most stations on a double track line would have at least two platforms, so that they can serve trains in both directions.  I also don't think that trains would terminate at such a small station.  I

Apologies for embedding. Ipad went a stray

 

agreenthat stations wouldnt be constructed in such a way, but post beeching, 1970’s even 2000’s era rationalisation they can end up in this way. The combinations of PRM, No money and public pressure have created so unusual contortions on the railway.

 

i guess the important question is what era are you conveying and obviously, is it British?

 

if its more modern, the examples as above show its possible.

agree if your pre 1960’s probably not.

 

Take a look at the discussion on the Okehampton thread, thats another example of a branchline at Bere Alston approaching a mainline, tying itself up in knots around cost and safety to get a solution that will inevitably look different to logic.

 

But a representation of a derelict 2nd platform, and some overgrown rough land indicating a line used to go from that platform to that branch imo looks like places ive been. Definitely shoehorning a modern single platform serving a smaller community with a basic service at what used to be a used to be prominent junction station on a mainline is nothing new on a modern cash strapped railway…

 

But I think key is the branch service doesnt terminate there, it runs through either direction, double track services do not as it wouldnt make sense, it’d be inbalanced or considerable wrong line running.. some modern designers are heavily  constrained but they are not impractical.

 

Another food for thought.. does the branch need to be a branch ?

could it be a turnback siding for a service coming from the mainline, terminating at the station ?, i might have once been a branch ?

 

Even Clapham junction p2 has an “oddball ended up this way” such a turnback siding… it even defies common logic in not using the historical platform 1 and left it void because of cost.

Edited September 30, 2023 by adb968008

[Stoke West]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

Apologies for embedding. Ipad went a stray

 

agreenthat stations wouldnt be constructed in such a way, but post beeching, 1970’s even 2000’s era rationalisation they can end up in this way. The combinations of PRM, No money and public pressure have created so unusual contortions on the railway.

 

i guess the important question is what era are you conveying and obviously, is it British?

 

if its more modern, the examples as above show its possible.

agree if your pre 1960’s probably not.

 

Take a look at the discussion on the Okehampton thread, thats another example of a branchline at Bere Alston approaching a mainline, tying itself up in knots around cost and safety to get a solution that will inevitably look different to logic.

 

But a representation of a derelict 2nd platform, and some overgrown rough land indicating a line used to go from that platform to that branch imo looks like places ive been. Definitely shoehorning a modern single platform serving a smaller community with a basic service at what used to be a used to be prominent junction station on a mainline is nothing new on a modern cash strapped railway…

 

But I think key is the branch service doesnt terminate there, it runs through either direction, double track services do not as it wouldnt make sense, it’d be inbalanced or considerable wrong line running.. some modern designers are heavily  constrained but they are not impractical.

 

Another food for thought.. does the branch need to be a branch ?

could it be a turnback siding for a service coming from the mainline, terminating at the station ?, i might have once been a branch ?

 

Even Clapham junction p2 has an “oddball ended up this way” such a turnback siding… it even defies common logic in not using the historical platform 1 and left it void because of cost.

Templecombe had a totally unprototype junction with the Somerset & Dorset which if it never existed any modeler suggesting such would have been derided . If the layout accommodates the service running thats what counts .

[n9]

9 hours ago, Dungrange said:

 

By and large, there will be the same number of trains in each direction, so for each E to F service, there would be a corresponding H to E service.  If it wasn't that way, then you'd ultimately end up with an imbalance of trains and a lot of passengers unable to get home.

 

 

I don't see E > B > C > D nor A > B > C > D as being particularly likely.  If a train is going to terminate and return in the direction that it came from, the point work would normally be arranged so that the train could make the movement directly from the platform (eg through a trailing crossover at A/D).  If these movements have to be made, then they should be E > B > C > J > C > D and A > B > C > J > C > D.  A train can't leave the station, stop in the middle of a junction and change direction.  It would be signalled to depart from the platform and would have to traverse all of the point work and continue until it was past the home signal at J.  The train could then stop, the driver would change ends and head of towards D.

 

 

Yes, facing crossovers (as you have at B/C) would generally have been avoided as much as possible in the steam era, but they did exist on some lines.  Ultimately you need the facing cross over so that trains approaching from the right can access the single track branch (E).  If you were running reasonably long freight trains via this route, it may be that the facing crossover was considered preferable to taking the trains to D then reversing into the platform to continue their journey.

 

 

The issue is more where the signals are placed.  If a train is approaching from A/E then it could sit over point B provided there was no intention to reverse trains at this location (ie E > B > C > J > C > D and A > B > C > J > C > D are not viable moves and neither would E > B > C > J  and A > B > C > J).  If that were the case, then the starting signal would be placed just before the point at which F and G diverge, in which case a unit sitting over point B would be okay.  However, if you want to be able to make any of the above moves, then the starter signal would be at the toe end of point B and sitting over the point would be less likely (ie the train would have to be cleared for departure before it was able to enter the station.  I see no reason why a train couldn't sit on your point connecting A and E as any train at your platform departing to the left must be heading towards E, which means the starting signal could be positioned accordingly.

 

 

I think it's highly unlikely that such a station would have been constructed in real life.  Most stations on a double track line would have at least two platforms, so that they can serve trains in both directions.  I also don't think that trains would terminate at such a small station.  I think the only justification for the arrangement you have would be that it is only used by services E > B > F and the reverse trip H > C > B > E.  Any other passenger services would pass through non-stop.  There is little point in letting passengers off, if you can't provide a stopping service in the reverse direction.

 

I'm therefore proposing some long freight trains to/from E justifying the facing crossover, and some short branch line passenger service to/from E stopping at this location to justify the platform, with all other trains in the plan just running through without stopping.

 

I've learnt an absolute ton from this! Thank you so very very much for being so detailed in your reply. Extremely helpful. Plus it's given me more detail on signalling, which I'm also learning about as I go.

 

You're proposal is a good one too. I do indeed have longish freight trains with destinations that are not set in stone yet, so that's given me something to think about.

 

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

Yes, but they've usually got a lot more space to play with...

 

So true! 🙂

 

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Would it fit in with your plans if the platform was an island platform, not uncommon where junctions like this were found in real life?  This might allow your 2-car dmu/loco & 2 coaches setup.  But I can't help making the comment that you are trying to get an awful lot of railway into a very small area, and that you may be tying yourself in knots as a result. 

 

Stations that used one platform face for traffic in both directions on double track routes are not unknown, especially in the early days of railway history, but were not common as the potential to delay traffic if one train is running out of course is considerable. 

 

 

 

If I skipped my desire to get DMUs terminating on that single platform purely on account of the operating interest, then yes, your island platform idea might be a good one, and I even wouldn't rule out adding a second platform. But from all the replies, reality does seem to be conflicting with what I want. So now I'll just have to juggle realism vs fun, and decide if I sneak in the occasional reversing DMU when no one is looking, or toe the line with realism.

[n9]

14 minutes ago, Stoke West said:

Templecombe had a totally unprototype junction with the Somerset & Dorset which if it never existed any modeler suggesting such would have been derided . If the layout accommodates the service running thats what counts .

 

I like your way of thinking! Great point!

[Flying Pig]

26 minutes ago, n9 said:

 

I like your way of thinking! Great point!

 

Except you may end up with a layout that looks like it should be wearing Lederhosen, or which screams post-1970 when you want to run a 1950s steam service. Track layout is part of the overall ambience.

[n9]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Except you may end up with a layout that looks like it should be wearing Lederhosen, or which screams post-1970 when you want to run a 1950s steam service. Track layout is part of the overall ambience.

 

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

Every one of the replies I've received has been immensely valuable in showing me what the real picture might be. I had quite a poor reference point before, and now I have a much better one. I'm still quite liking Dungrange's suggestion, but however it turns out, I'm going to be immensely satisfied.

[The Johnster]

Then our work here is done, and the RM collective has bent you to it's way of thinking.  One of us, one of us...

[Mike Buckner]

Not that we ever disagree with one another

[JimC]

Station layout is very much not my field, but how about something like this? Move the crossover round the corner and it can be trailing, plus a trailing access to goods that's accessible to trains coming from both forks. Enough platform for short branch trains, plus more length for main line trains. But how realistic it might be is beyond me. 


It does assume that there wouldn't be through trains from branch to stations to the right though, that would need another crossover, but in practice wouldn't most branches have a shuttle anyway and go no further than the junction?

 

Edited September 30, 2023 by JimC

[Dungrange]

10 hours ago, adb968008 said:

agree that stations wouldn't be constructed in such a way, but post Beeching, 1970’s even 2000’s era rationalisation they can end up in this way. The combinations of PRM, No money and public pressure have created so unusual contortions on the railway.

 

I agree, but the original post refers to the 1950s/60s, so I'm reading that as pre-Beeching and therefore before the rationalisation of the 1970s.  Of course not all closures can be attributed to Beeching and there were closures made throughout the 20th Century, with some lines even closing before 1900.

 

18 hours ago, adb968008 said:

ADE end is slightly reminiscent of Georgemas junction, especially with the yard.

 

I can see the similarity.  The difference is that the line through Georgemas Junction isn't and never has been double track.  All station approaches are single track lines, which is the reason for the station having only one platform.  To use the nomenclature of the plan being discussed, trains approach from A (Inverness), stop at the station platform, proceed to E (Thurso), return to the station platform and continue to F (Wick), return to the station platform, and then head back to A (Inverness).  The line in the middle of the above picture is a run-round loop for locomotive hauled services, which these days is just freight.

 

8 hours ago, n9 said:

But from all the replies, reality does seem to be conflicting with what I want. So now I'll just have to juggle realism vs fun, and decide if I sneak in the occasional reversing DMU when no one is looking, or toe the line with realism.

 

Rule 1 is to do what makes you happy.  At one end of the spectrum, there are those who want to make a perfect scale model of location X on a particular date, operated exactly as per the working timetable and sectional appendices.  At the other end of the spectrum are those who just want a trainset oval of track with a few sidings, and they don't care too much about how the real railway operates.  They run whatever they like in whatever manner they like.  There isn't really a right or wrong approach and it's up to you whether your preference is for realism or fun.

[Forward!]

It's often said that US model railroaders make models of railroads, British modellers only make models of stations. It might be a bit of a cliche, but in design terms, it really is worth adopting the American way of thinking- go beyond the bounds of your station and think 'outside the box'. Where is your station situated geographically? What line is it situated on, and, if it's a junction, what lines is it intended to connect? What company (or companies in joint) built it? What traffic was it intended to handle? A station in the 1950s could quite possibly have been around for 100 years- so you need to consider how it has developed over time too. Put simply- have a good think about WHY a train needs to travel between A-G, for instance. Where's it come from, why does it need to stop here, and where's it going!

 

Once you've got a good rationale for the existence of the station you can then start making decisions about the track layout- based on your imagined operational requirements. To me, it makes no sense to say "my chosen track layout works if I adopt an island platform" if the company that you imagine originally built it never had much propensity for adopting that form of layout in real life. That's post-facto justification. The best imagined layouts convey a sense of 'place'. 

 

Will

Edited September 30, 2023 by Forward!

[OnTheBranchline]

Should this thread be moved to the Layout Design area?

[n9]

16 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Then our work here is done, and the RM collective has bent you to it's way of thinking.  One of us, one of us...

Well that's certainly one interpretation of what I've actually said! 😉

 

13 hours ago, JimC said:

Station layout is very much not my field, but how about something like this?

Very kind of you to come up with a design. Appreciate it a lot! My plans however are largely set - space constraints mean I don't have the luxury of moving things around too much without causing major headaches elsewhere. I really just wondered about the small station and how true to life it might be. As it turns out, not too much, but I may end up operating it how I envisaged anyway. Either way, I've learnt an awful lot asking about this on this forum, and that's knowledge I'll certainly be applying when I extend my layout.

 

@Dungrange Those comments on Georgemas Junction are equally fascinating, even while they explain that it's not a double line. But operating my station with an alternating trio of destinations is an option that hadn't even ocurred to me, and regarless of realism, I love the idea of having those movements automated. Regarding your last paragraph, I appreciate it, that's something that's been very clear to me from the beginning.

 

12 hours ago, Forward! said:

It's often said that US model railroaders make models of railroads, British modellers only make models of stations. It might be a bit of a cliche, but in design terms, it really is worth adopting the American way of thinking- go beyond the bounds of your station and think 'outside the box'. Where is your station situated geographically? What line is it situated on, and, if it's a junction, what lines is it intended to connect? What company (or companies in joint) built it? What traffic was it intended to handle? A station in the 1950s could quite possibly have been around for 100 years- so you need to consider how it has developed over time too. Put simply- have a good think about WHY a train needs to travel between A-G, for instance. Where's it come from, why does it need to stop here, and where's it going!

 

Once you've got a good rationale for the existence of the station you can then start making decisions about the track layout- based on your imagined operational requirements. To me, it makes no sense to say "my chosen track layout works if I adopt an island platform" if the company that you imagine originally built it never had much propensity for adopting that form of layout in real life. That's post-facto justification. The best imagined layouts convey a sense of 'place'. 

 

Will

 

This made me smile! My layout actually began life based on a plan for a US railroad. Mainly on account of it fitting the kinds of things I wanted into a relatively small space, as well as not being overly ambitious. While my design has evolved considerably, including my addition of the branch line E, both still sport a small single platform station in one corner...

 

But if it wasn't clear, my post is about a portion of my existing layout, so I haven't started by modelling a station.

 

5 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

Should this thread be moved to the Layout Design area?

Perhaps. Not sure who's call that is, but my original post is about how true to life a portion of my model is, and I wanted to know what the real world was like in that respect.

[simon b]

On 30/09/2023 at 00:48, adb968008 said:

Its not beyond a stretch to have your single track services stop bidirectionally at the platform and continue in either direction, and have expresses running on the doubles.. maybe put remains of a platform on the other side.

 

There are a number of former mainlines that have been rundown and operate a bit unusual as a result.

Princes Risborough comes to mind as a prototype for that in it's rationalized period, late 60's to late 90's. It also had 3 branch line routes in different directions.

[n9]

1 hour ago, simon b said:

Princes Risborough comes to mind as a prototype for that in it's rationalized period, late 60's to late 90's. It also had 3 branch line routes in different directions.

Thanks Simon! That’s a little beyond my time frame, which is late 50s - early 60s, but very interesting nonetheless. That said, since I posted, I’ve come to like the idea of my single platform station serving 3 destinations so much, that I think I’ll bend reality if I need to. We shall see though; while the idea appeals, as development of the layout progresses and I finalise the scene, I may yet decide that what I like now looks too out of place later. 

 

I’ve really enjoyed everyone informing me so well. Thank you.