Theory of General Minories

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Regularity said:

 

But this has lost the ability to have a simultaneous departure from platform 1 and arrival at platform 2.

[john new]

24 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

It’s worth thinking about these arrangements in terms of capacity (number of trains that can be handled in and out each hour) at a real terminus.

 

Serving a two track route with two platforms, which is what this is heading to, is pretty restrictive unless the operating practices are really, really slick, the sort of thing the District did in steam days, which means making all the trains and locomotives identical. For toy train purposes, where variety adds fun, rather than trouble and expense, and one wants to include things like the odd newspaper and parcel train, it implies a lower density of service, and begs questions about all that fancy pointwork.

 

Surely the slip only needs to be single, not double, BTW, unless the ‘twig’ train runs round using the resultant loop.

 

 

Has to be a double IF you want to run in/out of platform 1. 

 

The idea I had in mind, possibly for a Leeds Eastgate station set in the Marsh Lane area is as below, although I should have put the existing line on the overbridge as it is already on a raised section! Limited service on the new curved spur. 

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by john new
Photo loaded finally via my phone & 4G!

[Nearholmer]

17 minutes ago, john new said:

Has to be a double IF you want to run in/out of platform 1. 

Are we looking at the same plan?

 

I was referring to the one posted by Flying Pig.

[t-b-g]

21 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But this has lost the ability to have a simultaneous departure from platform 1 and arrival at platform 2.

 

It has but it retains the same facility to arrive and depart at the same time that the original Minories plan had. There were two platforms on that where the arrivals and departures couldn't happen simultaneously. All this has done is to allow an arrival in 3 and a departure from 1 or 2. The original plan allowed a departure from 1 and an arrival in 2 or 3. So it is not a huge change and it looks as if it would shorten the throat slightly to a 3 point (albeit with complicated ones) from a 4 point (with standard turnouts) set up.

 

I sketched many, many such arrangements before I settled on the much simpler arrangement I am building, deciding that making much more complicated points to save a few inches in length wasn't a good trade off. 

[john new]

4 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Are we looking at the same plan?

 

I was referring to the one posted by Flying Pig.

The one with the red overlay has the d/s where I envisaged it going. 
 

Consensus appears to be it over complicates things, not worth doing.

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by john new

[Compound2632]

12 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

It has but it retains the same facility to arrive and depart at the same time that the original Minories plan had. There were two platforms on that where the arrivals and departures couldn't happen simultaneously. All this has done is to allow an arrival in 3 and a departure from 1 or 2. The original plan allowed a departure from 1 and an arrival in 2 or 3. So it is not a huge change and it looks as if it would shorten the throat slightly to a 3 point (albeit with complicated ones) from a 4 point (with standard turnouts) set up.

 

But this is a loss of flexibility, since it prevents an arrival if platform 3 is already occupied and a departure from platform 1 has the road.

 

With the greatest respect to @Regularity who has an eye for such things, I think my fundamental problem with this plan is that it looks, to me at least, unrailwaylike.

[Regularity]

24 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

With the greatest respect to @Regularity who has an eye for such things, I think my fundamental problem with this plan is that it looks, to me at least, unrailwaylike.

I thought that, too, after posting it, but had to do what I am paid to do!

This is better:

[t-b-g]

23 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But this is a loss of flexibility, since it prevents an arrival if platform 3 is already occupied and a departure from platform 1 has the road.

 

With the greatest respect to @Regularity who has an eye for such things, I think my fundamental problem with this plan is that it looks, to me at least, unrailwaylike.

 

I have spent many hours doodling plans similar to this. I may have come up with the same arrangement.

 

I discarded them because I felt the same way.

 

I have no fear of building complicated pointwork but it I always felt that in that situation, the real railway wouldn't do it like that.  A fairly simple station, with the only points being a 3 way, an outside slip and either a double slip or a scissors crossing just seems unlikely. A departure from 2 or 3 blocks any arrivals, so why not just have a trailing crossover in the main lines, rather than all that fancy stuff? It would be much cheaper for the real railway to build and maintain and the two tracks are there and available to use.

 

Unless I have missed something, this gives you the same opportunities for operation in a 4 point long approach with no complicated points.

 

[Regularity]

18 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

It would be much cheaper for the real railway to build and maintain and the two tracks are there and available to use.

Depends on two things, I think:

Available space (on the prototype);
Desire to create an image of the station being more important/busier than it is (from the perspective of the modeller).

 

Approaching Ludgate Hill from Holborn Viaduct:

 

Or there’s Blackfriars…

 

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by Regularity
Third reason: single slips are so “English”…

[Nearholmer]

The real railways seem to have enjoyed complicated, highly bespoke, point-work in the late-Victorian period, using surprisingly tight radii and wide crossing angles, before cottoning-on to the cost of creating and maintaining it, and simplifying as they upgraded for bigger locos, or did the sensible thing and electrified. So, if you love cramped and complicated, then maybe go c1900.

 

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Clive Mortimore]

3 hours ago, Regularity said:

Using hand-built track, or possibly some Tillig RTP, you can produce a much more visually satisfying look with a double slip, outside single slip, a “three-way” and a trap point:

Excluding the trap, if using the definition of a turnout per the Micro Layouts web site (a single purchased item) then this is a “3-point terminus”, per Ian Futers!

 

Oh I recognise that track plan but with Peco points

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by Clive Mortimore

[t-b-g]

When you look at older track layouts, you can often spot a reason for seemingly overcomplicated trackwork. You can spot a potential parallel move, or something that avoids facing point locks and extra signalling. They really did not just add complicated points for the fun of it.

 

I have doodled a second version, which is the same operationally but is now 3 points long and includes a double slip. I nearly built this one as it works quite well and is very compact.

[Regularity]

The lower slip road there is superfluous, surely?

[t-b-g]

4 minutes ago, Regularity said:

The lower slip road there is superfluous, surely?

 

Oops! Well spotted. A slip of the pen?

[Nearholmer]

11 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

They really did not just add complicated points for the fun of it.

No, but in some cases they do seem to have provided it for moves that cannot have been very common, and not to have “spread out” in order to use less bespoking.

 

To me, it speaks of the difference between a “craftsman” approach and a rationalised approach using “a book of standard parts”.

[t-b-g]

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

No, but in some cases they do seem to have provided it for moves that cannot have been very common, and not to have “spread out” in order to use less bespoking.

 

To me, it speaks of the difference between a “craftsman” approach and a rationalised approach using “a book of standard parts”.

 

I would be interested if anybody could come up with a real example of complicated pointwork which serves no apparent useful function.

 

I think you are quite right, it was a completely different approach to the modern day and sometimes track layouts would include possible routes through that may have been used rarely and perhaps never. But I would be astonished if there are real examples like the one I drew by mistake with a double slip in that sort of arrangement, which I have seen on models. If they do exist, it will be a station where track has been altered and they didn't want to bother taking the slip roads out.

 

There are enough older stations very like Minories for me to be happy that complex pointwork isn't necessary to create a railwaylike design.

[Compound2632]

24 minutes ago, Regularity said:

The lower slip road there is superfluous, surely?

 

19 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Oops! Well spotted. A slip of the pen?

 

Yes, really what's going on here is simply overlaying the two approach crossovers as a scissors crossover. If a double slip is used to give access to platform 3 and a 3-way for the loco spur, the throat becomes just two points long.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Compound2632

[Clive Mortimore]

Then of course having scissors crossover is another approach.

 

[Nearholmer]

16 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I would be interested if anybody could come up with a real example of complicated pointwork which serves no apparent useful function.

Genuinely, 100% useless point-work I too doubt, but points to avoid double-shuffles once in a blue moon, or to avoid one FPL, definitely.

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Then of course having scissors crossover is another approach.

 

That's more or less what I was thinking of, though in my mind the scissors would be symmetrical, and so shorter. A snag with this tour-de-force of track-building is that there appears to be inadequate clearance between the facing crossover (arrivals line-to-platform 1) and the loco spur line. 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Regularity said:

Depends on two things, I think:

Available space (on the prototype);
Desire to create an image of the station being more important/busier than it is (from the perspective of the modeller).

 

Approaching Ludgate Hill from Holborn Viaduct:

 

Or there’s Blackfriars…

 

 

 

That is just lovely! Obviously the reason is the bridge, which gives you a good justification for such arrangements in model form. I wonder if anybody has ever modelled that little lot? I don't have any problem with complicated trackwork, in case that was the impression I was giving. I like it and I have built plenty over the years. In that case, if you want all that access to and from different routes and platforms, that is all you can do and it looks right in that situation.

 

I just can't see the logic of building lots of complex points when simpler ones would fit in the same space and do the same job. It isn't what the real railways would do and it isn't something I like to do but if anybody else wants to go down that way of designing layouts then good luck to them. I love fancy pointwork as much as anybody but I enjoy it even more when it is in a realistic setting and situation.

[t-b-g]

14 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Genuinely, 100% useless point-work I too doubt, but points to avoid double-shuffles once in a blue moon, or to avoid one FPL, definitely.

 

Pretty much what I said earlier. There was usually (always?) a reason for such arrangements, even if you have to really dig around a bit to find out what it was.

[t-b-g]

23 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Then of course having scissors crossover is another approach.

 

 

Some cracking point building there. Is it a new layout or are these older photos of one done a while ago?

[5BarVT]

6 hours ago, Regularity said:

Using hand-built track, or possibly some Tillig RTP, you can produce a much more visually satisfying look with a double slip, outside single slip, a “three-way” and a trap point:

Excluding the trap, if using the definition of a turnout per the Micro Layouts web site (a single purchased item) then this is a “3-point terminus”, per Ian Futers!

 

Elegant!

Interesting subtlety introduced though: the ‘double’ line has changed to the island rather than between the platforms.

Psul.

[Regularity]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

No, but in some cases they do seem to have provided it for moves that cannot have been very common, and not to have “spread out” in order to use less bespoking.

Also, they were keener to avoid too many reverses of curvature, and at the same time to allow for simulataneous moves.

There are very few arrangements where, given the space, only ordinary turnouts cannot be used to substitute for complicated pieces of track, and with modern locos and rolling stock being largely built on two four-wheel bogies, this is not providing as much stress on plate frames as used to occur.

Nowadays, if you have (say) down fast, up fast, down slow, up slow and wish to have crossovers between the fast and slow lines, it will not be done with two turnouts and a diamond, but a pair of crossovers. Either way, you occupy a line for opposing track, but it is a smoother transition. You can see this on the WCML, at places like Hanslope Junction, and on first sight there might appear to be too many crossovers, but on a very busy main line route, there needs to be the capability for trains to pass each other without a conflicting movement (aka crashing!)

In early days, maximum flexibility in the shortest space (because they didn’t have point motors and the rodding is only effective over a relatively short distance) was the order of the day.

 

I must admit to finding this whole discussion to be a fascinating distraction!

 

The other thing to note is that we always think of having say 3 times as many platforms as there are approach tracks, but if you look at Blackfriars Bridge, Cannon Street, Fenchurch Street (GER with the LTSR exercising running powers, all into four platforms!), that ain’t necessarily so!