Compact station throat ideas.

[simon b]

I've been trying out various ideas in anyrail again, mainly variations of Victoria park and Minories. I decided to see how compact of a 3 platform station throat I could get away with and came up with this: 

 

 

That's all 3 platforms accessible for both arrivals and departures in just over 31" using medium radius points, quite a few parallel movements are possible too. Can anybody see a way to shrink it even further, or any reason that such a track layout cant be used?

[Flying Pig]

I think Compact Minories with a single slip on the arrival route is shorter (2 points plus the slip) and cheaper (just needs the slip and 3 points).  On the downside it has slightly fewer parallel moves than yours and more reverse curves.  Probably discussed in more detail on the General Minories thread if you have the time to search.

[simon b]

20 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

I think Compact Minories with a single slip on the arrival route is shorter (2 points plus the slip) and cheaper (just needs the slip and 3 points).  On the downside it has slightly fewer parallel moves than yours and more reverse curves.  Probably discussed in more detail on the General Minories thread if you have the time to search.

 

Minories using the single slip idea is an improvement on the original I think, it just looks a more natural flow to the track than the reverse curves using points. It was the first version of Clive Mortimore's Sheffield exchange that I first saw that trick used, and it does seem to save space.

 

 

[simon b]

Just realized Morden's track layout is quite close to what I've sketched out, quite unusual in that it had 5 platform faces serving 3 tracks. I'd love to know the reasons behind that. 

 

[RobinofLoxley]

There's nothing wrong with the throat, but of course the track separation will be extra wide compared to standard.

 

As far as the Morden track and platform pattern is concerned, I used to use Cockfosters regularly with the same pattern. Usually it allowed the train arriving in the central platform to discharge passengers one side then fill from the other. Out of peak hours the centre and one other platform were used, with the third platform used to rotate stock in and out of service. Cockfosters had the large depot of course, I assume Morden has some stock sidings somewhere.

[stewartingram]

The line continues beyond the station into Morden depot.

[Phatbob]

My own thoughts on the same theme.  I don't know if it'll be of any interest or help.
 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

I hope it’s OK by @Phatbob, but I think there might be an additional line across the top, to allow for a greater range of parallel or simultaneous arrivals / departures.  It also eliminates snaking moves for trains coming straight into the top platform, Keith:

 

[simon b]

4 hours ago, Phatbob said:

My own thoughts on the same theme.  I don't know if it'll be of any interest or help.
 

 

10 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I hope it’s OK by @Phatbob, but I think there might be an additional line across the top, to allow for a greater range of parallel or simultaneous arrivals / departures.  It also eliminates snaking moves for trains coming straight into the top platform, Keith:

 

 

I like it, y points could be used for the two  points on the left to lessen the snaking around the slip too.  Minories is an iconic plan, but it's nice to see different ways of doing the urban terminus.

[Flying Pig]

On 04/05/2024 at 19:16, simon b said:

I decided to see how compact of a 3 platform station throat I could get away with

 

Of course, if you drop the need for arrivals and departures at every platform, the throat can be just a trailing crossover and a point for a bay on the departure side: that's three points and only two points in length because the bay point overlaps the crossover.  There's only one platform for arrivals and all trains are shunted to await departure.  Very economical and plenty of play value for a solo operator.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

17 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Of course, if you drop the need for arrivals and departures at every platform, the throat can be just a trailing crossover and a point for a bay on the departure side: that's three points and only two points in length because the bay point overlaps the crossover.  There's only one platform for arrivals and all trains are shunted to await departure.  Very economical and plenty of play value for a solo operator.

As an alternative, a facing crossover on arrival plus bay point gives two roads for arrivals and two for departures (the centre road can do both).  Just a thought, Keith.

[Pacific231G]

On 04/05/2024 at 19:16, simon b said:

I've been trying out various ideas in anyrail again, mainly variations of Victoria park and Minories. I decided to see how compact of a 3 platform station throat I could get away with and came up with this: 

 

 

That's all 3 platforms accessible for both arrivals and departures in just over 31" using medium radius points, quite a few parallel movements are possible too. Can anybody see a way to shrink it even further, or any reason that such a track layout cant be used?

That's an interesting variation Simon and does looks like the sort of pointwork you tended to see in urban terminus throats. The widening between the two main line tracks doesn't worry me and you could alway insert a bridge pier to justify it. The only difficulties I can see are the immediate reverse curve going from the main line to platform 3 and that Peco's slips are effectively 2ft radius so tighter than their medium radius points. Something coming from platform 2 to the main line is going to lurch a bit as it crosses. I experimented with a Peco sip with my own stock and just found the throwover through it a bit too much. If you could replace the Peco slip with a larger radius alternative you'd probably solve that at the expense of a couple of inches of length. For comparison, Minories with Peco medium points is about 34" long and does contain one unseparated reverse curve. This throat would look really good as a bespoke piece of pointwork. 

 

I experimented with using a slip to shorten the throat quite a lot but found that the resulting throat seemed to be just too short. I  didn't find any great virtue in trying to shorten the basic four points long, three platfom to double track, mainline throat (of which Minories is an ingenious variant) any further as a departing train seemed to leave the stage just that bit too soon. With four points lengths I did get some sense of the train departing the platform and only then leaving the scene.  

Edited May 8 by Pacific231G
punctuation

[Flying Pig]

5 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

This throat would look really good as a bespoke piece of pointwork.

 

If you were building this throat, there are a number of things you could do to improve it that just aren't possible with unmodified Peco.  For a start you could tighten up the scissors (could also be done with Streamline and a razor saw).  You could use a shallower crossing in the turnout to platform 3 to ease the reverse curve.  You could even change to an outside slip to ease the curve out of platform 2.  Carefully chosen curves throughout the formation could also be used to smooth the transitions.

 

See for example https://www.scalefour.org/scaleforum/2017/minories/minories-010.html

[simon b]

8 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

That's an interesting variation Simon and does looks like the sort of pointwork you tended to see in urban terminus throats. The widening between the two main line tracks doesn't worry me and you could alway insert a bridge pier to justify it. The only difficulties I can see are the immediate reverse curve going from the main line to platform 3 and that Peco's slips are effectively 2ft radius so tighter than their medium radius points. Something coming from platform 2 to the main line is going to lurch a bit as it crosses. I experimented with a Peco sip with my own stock and just found the throwover through it a bit too much. If you could replace the Peco slip with a larger radius alternative you'd probably solve that at the expense of a couple of inches of length. For comparison, Minories with Peco medium points is about 34" long and does contain one unseparated reverse curve. This throat would look really good as a bespoke piece of pointwork. 

 

I experimented with using a slip to shorten the throat quite a lot but found that the resulting throat seemed to be just too short. I  didn't find any great virtue in trying to shorten the basic four points long three platfom to double track mainline throat (of which Minories is an ingenious variant) any further as a departing train seemed to leave the stage just that bit too soon. With four points lengths I did get some sense of the train departing the platform and only then leaving the scene.  

 

The curvature of the Peco slips is a bit of pain, what looks good on paper doesn't quite work as intended when layed out with actual track. I've got a lovely outside single slip from Tiling but the angles dont work well with the Peco track geometry.  Minories built with Y points in the throat to ease the curves is probably the best compromise in that respect.

 

Minories itself is a great plan but it just never seemed busy enough to me in the track department, I know it's only an illusion but adding a slip to it makes it seem more complicated than it really is. Seironim by Harlequin caught my interest in that way, same idea as Minories but it has a very different feel to it.

 

A handbuilt version of what I've drawn would solve it's issues, I'll lay it out with the Peco templates just to see how bad the throw is, a large radius point in the lower platform might also help it. I did have a version that had a loco spur in the bottom right corner but it then looked too much track vs scenery. A bridge pillar on the right side of the scissors is a good idea, gives it a reason to be spaced like that. Thanks. 

[simon b]

So I printed off the plan using the Peco planning templates, and posed some coaches on it to check the angles. Surprisingly the slip doesn't seem to cause too much of an issue for a mk1 length coach, it is a tighter curve than ideal and does cause a noticeable swing of the coach end but it's bearable. There was a very sharp single slip at holborn viaduct that caused a similar swing so not entirely unprototypical. The point in the lower platform looks better as a large radius, a medium works fine but as its the most visible out of all of them I think it's worth sacrificing two inches of platform line for it. Those two will work as neither one is forming a reverse curve, there is always a length of straight track before the next curve.

 

The reverse curve from the 3 way point into the lower platform line is a problem however, it actually causes more of a swing of the coach ends than the slip does. Unfortunately there is no easy way around that without modification of the point itself, I think it might be possible to cut the point back to the frog and start the curve from there. I'll have to look into that further.

 

These pics should show the throw of the coach ends.

 

 

 

Edited May 9 by simon b

[Flying Pig]

26 minutes ago, simon b said:

The reverse curve from the 3 way point into the lower platform line is a problem however, it actually causes more of a swing of the coach ends than the slip does. Unfortunately there is no easy way around that without modification of the point itself, I think it might be possible to cut the point back to the frog and start the curve from there. I'll have to look into that further.

 

You'd expect more offset between the coach ends there, precisely because it is a reverse curve and they are swinging in opposite directions.  The maximum amount of offset is determined largely by the track spacing and the divergence angle of the point.  You may be able to reduce the divergence angle a bit by trimming the point if it is curved through the crossing, but most Streamline ones are straight there.

 

[Night Train]

On 07/05/2024 at 18:37, Phatbob said:

My own thoughts on the same theme.  I don't know if it'll be of any interest or help.
 

I would get rid of the 2 bottom points and use a double slip.

[simon b]

On 09/05/2024 at 22:31, Flying Pig said:

 

You'd expect more offset between the coach ends there, precisely because it is a reverse curve and they are swinging in opposite directions.  The maximum amount of offset is determined largely by the track spacing and the divergence angle of the point.  You may be able to reduce the divergence angle a bit by trimming the point if it is curved through the crossing, but most Streamline ones are straight there.

 

It does look like it's straight rail after the frog rather than curved. I tried overlaying a length of flexi track on top of the template to test what difference it makes, its such a small improvement I don't think it's worth hacking the point about for. The answer might be to just live with it and use something to block the view at that part, possibly a signal box.

 

[simon b]

26 minutes ago, Night Train said:

I would get rid of the 2 bottom points and use a double slip.

 

You can, but it dose create a bottleneck if your keeping the two track mainline.

[Flying Pig]

10 hours ago, simon b said:

It does look like it's straight rail after the frog rather than curved. I tried overlaying a length of flexi track on top of the template to test what difference it makes, its such a small improvement I don't think it's worth hacking the point about for. The answer might be to just live with it and use something to block the view at that part, possibly a signal box.

 

 

I'm not sure what stock you intend to run, but judging by the photo I guess a mix of EMUs and Mk1 hauled stock?  If you can restrict platform 3 to shorter non-gangwayed vehicles like EPB stock, they will probably look less offensive running through the reverse curve. 

 

[Night Train]

21 hours ago, simon b said:

 

You can, but it dose create a bottleneck if your keeping the two track mainline.

I guess thats true. In that case. I would move the lower right point to the bottom track and smooth out the double curve. And go back to a single slip.

 

 

Edited May 11 by Night Train

[simon b]

1 hour ago, Night Train said:

I guess thats true. In that case. I would move the lower right point to the bottom track and smooth out the double curve. And go back to a single slip.

 

 

That works well. I'd change the points either side of the slip to y points so there are no reverse curves.

[simon b]

12 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I'm not sure what stock you intend to run, but judging by the photo I guess a mix of EMUs and Mk1 hauled stock?  If you can restrict platform 3 to shorter non-gangwayed vehicles like EPB stock, they will probably look less offensive running through the reverse curve. 

 

 

I think that's the answer. I've got alot of non gangway emus, 2epb, 2hal, 2bil, so those could use platforms 2 and 3. The loco hauled sets can normally work into platform 1, but the Met electrics and their "faux dreadnought" coach sets are short so could probably go anywhere.

[DavidB-AU]

On 12/05/2024 at 07:47, simon b said:

That works well. I'd change the points either side of the slip to y points so there are no reverse curves.

 

A Y would introduce subtle reverse curves too. I'd simply use a LH rather than RH. A crude edit but something like this.

 

 

It might even be possible to use curved points with partly curved platforms.

 

EDIT: Curved points makes it very compact and eliminates reverse curves. The platforms are left to the imagination.

 

Edited May 13 by DavidB-AU

[Flying Pig]

6 hours ago, DavidB-AU said:

A Y would introduce subtle reverse curves too. I'd simply use a LH rather than RH. A crude edit but something like this.

 

 

It might even be possible to use curved points with partly curved platforms.

 

Which gets back to a fairly standard compact Minories (using a single slip) with a curved throat.  It looks a bit different because the straight after the slip redistributes the platform faces.