LMS Branch Line Terminus Plan for Large Layout

[The Nottingham Extension]

Not sure if this is actually an improvement or just a reshuffling

 

Note: the shed can be removed again. I put it back in to see if it works

 

I wonder if in real life the level crossing is a but too close to the tunnel mouth but then again it is rural so maybe not. Only be used by lorries and goods vehicles as an access road to the yard

 

Think I would prefer the shed on the inside of the bend to allow the back corner to be used for a village scene with a church or something but I can't really work out the best practical way of doing that except shortening at least one of the general goods sidings?

 

Also starting to look busy again? Can't win!!

[Flying Pig]

Really better off without it imo.

 

Also, you don't need a tunnel or bridge to close the scene - some buildings or even trees would do fine - so the level crossing shouldn't be a problem.

[Michael Hodgson]

7 minutes ago, The Nottingham Extension said:

 

I wonder if in real life the level crossing is a but too close to the tunnel mouth but then again it is rural so maybe not. Only be used by lorries and goods vehicles as an access road to the yard

 

Note that the signalbox would be close to the level crossing so that the signalman can work the gates and keep an eye on road traffic, and to the main pointwork (engine release crossover at the other end of the platform would be hand-worked).

If it's public road, gates swing across the line.  If it's private, they swing away from line.

On this latest layout, the lorry access to the goods shed from the crossing is presumably via the operating well 🙂

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

On this latest layout, the lorry access to the goods shed from the crossing is presumably via the operating well 🙂

 

Yes - noted above.  When you only have 12" of width something has to give.

[The Nottingham Extension]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Note that the signalbox would be close to the level crossing so that the signalman can work the gates and keep an eye on road traffic, and to the main pointwork (engine release crossover at the other end of the platform would be hand-worked).

If it's public road, gates swing across the line.  If it's private, they swing away from line.

On this latest layout, the lorry access to the goods shed from the crossing is presumably via the operating well 🙂

Yep they will just about be the edge of the road track until the goods shed where a bit more of a yard can be present

 

Thanks for notes on the signal box positioning, I'll add that in on the next iteration. Would you say it should be on the near side or far side of the line (assuming the shed line is to disappear)

Edited April 11 by The Nottingham Extension

[Flying Pig]

It gets a better view on the outside of the curve and also means you can see the front of the model.

[Michael Hodgson]

4 minutes ago, The Nottingham Extension said:

 

Thanks for notes on the signal box positioning, I'll add that in on the next iteration. Would you say it should be on the near side or far side of the line (assuming the shed line is to disappear)

 

Visibility is presumably better from the oustide of the curve - the signalman needs to see tail lamps

[The Nottingham Extension]

Stanley v5:

• Shed removed
• Road track, signal box and church added
• Tunnel removed

Thoughts?

[Michael Hodgson]

I'm not sure there were any private sidings in bay platforms like that (I think there's another thread asking about that somewhere).

But I suppose if it's a factory with its factory wall against the back of the platform, and perhaps a gate or door it's just about plausible. 

I guess you need to decide what the factory makes.

Obviously that siding would be protected by a trap as would the two sidings at the bottom.

[Pete the Elaner]

2 hours ago, The Nottingham Extension said:

Stanley v5:

• Shed removed
• Road track, signal box and church added
• Tunnel removed

Thoughts?

 

I notice the goods shed has been shifted along to almost the end of the siding. I always question this.

Unloading 4-5 wagons in a train requires shuffling them. This is a bit of a pain which is great for a layout if you like shunting, but a real pain in the real world where things needs to be done. Moving the shed along a little (which would be more typical from the plans I have seen) allows more of the train to access the goods shed by simply pushing it further down the line.

[tractionman]

for more prototype inspiration / operations, I recommend a look at the two vols of 'An Historical Survey of Selected London, Midland and Scottish ( LMS ) Stations: Layouts and Illustrations':

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Historical-Selected-Midland-Scottish-Stations/dp/0860931684

 

plus the 'LMS lineside' vols

 

https://wildswanbooks.co.uk/Books/LMS-Lineside1.htm

 

 

 

[The Nottingham Extension]

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

I notice the goods shed has been shifted along to almost the end of the siding. I always question this.

Unloading 4-5 wagons in a train requires shuffling them. This is a bit of a pain which is great for a layout if you like shunting, but a real pain in the real world where things needs to be done. Moving the shed along a little (which would be more typical from the plans I have seen) allows more of the train to access the goods shed by simply pushing it further down the line.

I'll move it closer to the loco release points. I can see the reasoning behind that and since the operator of this station will also have to manage the goods yard of the junction it would make sense to make their life as easy as possible much like the real thing!

[The Nottingham Extension]

1 hour ago, tractionman said:

for more prototype inspiration / operations, I recommend a look at the two vols of 'An Historical Survey of Selected London, Midland and Scottish ( LMS ) Stations: Layouts and Illustrations':

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Historical-Selected-Midland-Scottish-Stations/dp/0860931684

 

plus the 'LMS lineside' vols

 

https://wildswanbooks.co.uk/Books/LMS-Lineside1.htm

 

 

 

Thanks! I shall definitely be taking a look. Do you know if any signalling information for ex-LMS lines is contained within either of these or would I need to go somewhere else for that?

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, tractionman said:

for more prototype inspiration / operations, I recommend a look at the two vols of 'An Historical Survey of Selected London, Midland and Scottish ( LMS ) Stations: Layouts and Illustrations':

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Historical-Selected-Midland-Scottish-Stations/dp/0860931684

 

 

 

55 minutes ago, The Nottingham Extension said:

Thanks! I shall definitely be taking a look. Do you know if any signalling information for ex-LMS lines is contained within either of these or would I need to go somewhere else for that?

Yes, there is a signalling diagram for most of the stations, both volumes usually available through the second hand market.  They have also produced other books with a lot of signalling info.  I was one of several people who proof-read those two volumes - and there were still a few typos and similar errors that got through!  Hard to believe that was over 40 years ago.

 

Other authors had produced similar books in that series on SR & GWR stations, and the authors of these ones had intended to do a third and even had the material for a fourth volume, but OPC decided not to continue the range.  Pity, as they give a lot of info useful to modellers on a range of prototype locations.

[The Nottingham Extension]

33 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

 

Yes, there is a signalling diagram for most of the stations, both volumes usually available through the second hand market.  They have also produced other books with a lot of signalling info.  I was one of several people who proof-read those two volumes - and there were still a few typos and similar errors that got through!  Hard to believe that was over 40 years ago.

 

Other authors had produced similar books in that series on SR & GWR stations, and the authors of these ones had intended to do a third and even had the material for a fourth volume, but OPC decided not to continue the range.  Pity, as they give a lot of info useful to modellers on a range of prototype locations.

Picked up a copy, £7.27 on Amazon brand new, can't complain! Shame they decided not to continue the run, that would have opened up a lot of options for lots more people, especially modellers as you say. Good to hear there is signalling info as I need to decide my signals for the whole layout so that sounds like another rabbit hole to get stuck down!

Edited April 11 by The Nottingham Extension

[The Nottingham Extension]

Stanley v6: The shed returns! Have also added a signal to the entry to the station although whether one would actually be present there is unlikely? I will admit I'm torn between having the shed in and not. Somehow still not quite happy with the general track layout, feels very linear to the baseboard edge and it's grating on me a bit!

[tractionman]

if not a shed then how about a coaling stage like this:

 

https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/mrred1379.htm

 

just spotted there is even one available for 4mm!

 

https://www.mmrmodels.co.uk/product-page/copy-of-oo-gauge-big-4-basic-coaling-stage

Edited April 12 by tractionman

[Flying Pig]

33 minutes ago, The Nottingham Extension said:

Somehow still not quite happy with the general track layout, feels very linear to the baseboard edge and it's grating on me a bit!

 

Go and look at @Harlequin's plan and how it flows and see if you can replicate that - I think it uses curved points.  I posted a version reduced to a single siding at the front as per your recent iterations.

 

As to the shed, this is always a point of discussion when BLTs come up.  As I understand it from previous threads, the purpose of a shed was usually to house the passenger engine overnight so that it could work the first train as an Up service in the morning.  That avoided having to run an empty service down the branch first thing. Only in exceptional cases would a shunter be outstationed at a BLT as usually the goods engine would do the major shunting and your station is a pretty simple one.

 

If you look at the disused stations page on Newport Pagnell linked above, it was a station at the end of a short branch with a loco shed that closed in 1955 (apparently while the branch was still being worked by steam - see the 1959 picture of an LMS driving trailer).  So the site of a demolished shed is an option for your period too. 

 

[DCB]

If  you must have an engine shed,   why not have a disused one..   I was de cobwebbing my BLT  today and decided  that it made a lot of sense  for my one and a half Airfix engine shed  to be  rendered  "Disused" and rented to an Engineering firm,   

[Rivercider]

I get the impression that you have given quite a bit of thought to the back story for the Nottingham Extension. 

The question as to whether there was an engine shed at Stanley would depend on a number of factors including where

the first train of the day starts from. Another factor would be who built the Stanley branch? If it was promoted by a small local company there is more chance they would have provided a shed for their loco at their terminus.  If the LNWR promoted and built the line then perhaps more likely they would have resourced the line from their nearest existing loco shed?

 

cheers 

Edited April 13 by Rivercider
Spelling

[The Nottingham Extension]

5 hours ago, Rivercider said:

I get the impression that you have given quite a bit of thought to the back story for the Nottingham Extension. 

The question as to whether there was an engine shed at Stanley would depend on a number of factors including where

the first train of the day starts from. Another factor would be who built the Stanley branch? If it was promoted by a small local company there is more chance they would have provided a shed for their loco at their terminus.  If the LNWR promoted and built the line then perhaps more likely they would have resourced the line from their nearest existing loco shed?

 

cheers 

The first and last weekday and all weekend trains are steam hauled from Nottingham Park Street but the normal weekdays are served by a Derby Lightweight DMU that originates at Bramcote Junction. I guess it depends more on the freight than the passenger. In the backstory the LNWR did build this railway, is it more likely for them to use the first pickup freight locomotive of the day to do the shunting or have a locomotive in steam already there? Or as @DCB says would it more likely have had a locomotive shed but under BR become disused with the use of DMUs?

[Asterix2012]

7 hours ago, Rivercider said:

I get the impression that you have given quite a bit of thought to the back story for the Nottingham Extension. 

The question as to whether there was an engine shed at Stanley would depend on a number of factors including where

the first train of the day starts from. Another factor would be who built the Stanley branch? If it was promoted by a small local company there is more chance they would have provided a shed for their loco at their terminus.  If the LNWR promoted and built the line then perhaps more likely they would have resourced the line from their nearest existing loco shed?

 

cheers 

It would also depend on how far the branch was from a main shed.

 

Killin and Aberfeldy are examples where a shed was maintained due to distance from a main shed so the branch engine was maintained there.

[D9020 Nimbus]

I don't think you need to be worried as to whether the track plan represents typical LNWR practice — BLTs were usually unique designs, although through stations were often of standard designs. The Midland termini at Stroud and Nailsworth were totally unlike each other, for example.

 

Other LNWR termini you might look at are Banbury Merton Street (a larger example), Croxley Green and Stanmore. All of these plus Newport Pagnell were covered in past issues of Backtrack — though I'm not sure which ones.

[Schooner]

With apologies to Phil, and anyone who actually knows how to use Paint:

 

 

Changes from left to right

• Engine shed access flipped and direct to running line - aiming to make more of a journey and less of a chore of light engine moves
• Kickback siding, via 24 degree crossing, for coal yard (room for a lineside pile of coal or two on the viewing side, and/or a coal office by the crossing)
• Mileage siding brought to the front - aiming for the c.80mm between lines needed for a scale 20' truck/cart turning circle. Yard fence/wall along front of layout to make sense of the trackplan, perhaps.
• Loading dock, with shed (or better, just lock-up?) on the runround spur

Think that ticks the boxes, would fit, and gives each element some breathing space. 5' of visible platform for a 3-coach train is a pretty nice balance, as is getting on for 7' of minerals and mileage siding; and two locations for covered wagons/specials. Not bad for the space, sympathetically unlocked by @Harlequin

 

If I had access to planning software atm I'd be able to confirm, but looks doable.

[Flying Pig]

9 hours ago, Schooner said:

Changes from left to right

 

Nope, sorry.  Keep it simple - ditch the loco shed and the kickback.  The former adds no play value as it would only be occupied overnight and might well be out of use by the OP's period.

 

The kickback,siding doesn't really fit the board and serves to highlight the board edge.  As an aside, I like the crossed sidings pattern, but the diamond crossing is tricky to wire for live frog as if the points are set for both sidings, the frog polarities are undetermined (so ok with insulfrog or if you can implement some kind of point interlocking).

 

There should be plenty of shunting fun with two railway sidings and one private siding.