Your advice on a station throat please

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Here's my take.

 

Being Southern, I think there would've been direct access to/from all the platforms. I very much like the idea of the disused platform for the 1980s - very typical scenario

 

Personally I prefer just the one island platform. Again being Southern, double/single slips were quite common. Don't have any problem of them surviving into the 1980s.

[bigP]

--

[Joseph_Pestell]

Here's my take.

 

Being Southern, I think there would've been direct access to/from all the platforms. I very much like the idea of the disused platform for the 1980s - very typical scenario

 

Personally I prefer just the one island platform. Again being Southern, double/single slips were quite common. Don't have any problem of them surviving into the 1980s.

 

I like both of these, very BR(S) but they do need slip points and the Peco slips are not compatible with the modular standard.

[Guest]

Of all the plans I've seen so far in this thread, I just have to say that Peter's 1980s rationalised plan with a disused platform (Post #27) is the one that slaps me about and screams "Southern!" Not 100% sure why... I guess it's all down to personal taste rather than anything else.

I note that the use of a slip (single or double) is prohibited in the modular standards. Is this "absolute" or just "advisory"? I'm only asking because I see their prohibition as a very limiting factor in what I might like to create if ever I was to go down the modular route... Assuming that any modular layout also has a life in the home outside of a modular "meeting", I can't be the only one that has space limitations often solved by the use of a slip or two. Shame.

[cromptonnut]

We all know that most people who build kits that aren't going to go round 36" curves are likely to model EM or P4 so the chances of anyone having OO stock that won't go round less than 36" curves are minimal.  Pretty much all unmodified RTR stock will cope with radius 2 curves which is a lot tighter.  Also, for those modellers, they are more likely to be "perfectionists" that aren't going to be happy with working in a modular standard where you'll get a mishmash of eras and parts of the country mixing at the same time - the point of modular of course being based more on operations than a perfect representation of a particular location on a particular date.

 

Interestingly though, the standards mention "Track curvature -  Minimum radius for the mainline should be 36" which corresponds with Peco Medium Radius points and for sidings 24" which corresponds with Peco Small Radius Points" which to my mind says that slips are permissible under the 24" rule.

 

On the basis that the real railway has "RA" (axle loading) and certain clearance issues where not all stock is cleared to run on all lines, to my mind it's not unreasonable that models that cannot be accommodated on all parts of a modular layout too.   As with real curves, tighter pointwork will have reduced speeds to the main line, and on the basis that it is a terminus you're going to be looking at maybe 15mph at that point anyway regardless of the route taken and thus minimising the risk of derailments.  But if we find out that something won't go over a Peco double slip then we find ways to use it in other ways (or not bring it to a modular meet).  We all know what works on our modules but there is no guarantee that anything will work faultlessly on someone else's modules.

 

However the issue has been discussed at length and there was really no confirmed answer either way so I would tend to interpret the minimum radius on the basis of my second point, and as long as a meet organiser knows in advance that certain routes into my station have a slip and therefore cannot accommodate stock that isn't happy on <36" radius curves then I see no real problem. 

[cromptonnut]

Update... I am an idiot.

 

I've just rechecked the Railway Group Standards for platforms and it states

6.2.2

The minimum width of an island platform, excluding the width of any column or platform building, structure, access or egress, or other platform furniture shall be 4000mm for speeds up to 165 km/h (100mph) and for line speeds greater than 165 km/h (100mph) the minimum dimension shall be 6000mm.

 

For a terminus 4000mm platforms would be sufficient which to scale is 52mm.  I had been working on 4" (100mm) as I had forgotten I'm not working in O gauge at the moment.

 

That does make things fit rather a lot better than I had been trying... and Peter's 1980s plan does still work.  I think in my own mind the 4 platform line arrangement was best but the "slightly run down 80s look" - in that plan will probably fit the stock better.

 

[Guest]

Just one note of caution... you may get away with a 52mm wide island platform according to the letter of the law, but you might find it just "looks" too narrow. I've certainly had that issue in the past. If you can push the platform width out just a little (even 10-15mm), aesthetically it should look a little better. Good luck with this.

[cromptonnut]

With XTrackCAD (which I'm using to see how things fit) straight lines are much easier to work with.  If I use a gentle curve at the end of the island platform (as I have a restriction due to a board joint) then it will allow me to do a wider platform, as you note there "to scale" doesn't always look right, particularly in OO.

 

There's also the option of using 24" boards rather than the modular standard 18" (as long as the outer ends are 18" and compatible with standards it doesn't really matter what you do inbetween) which makes life a little easier as well

[The Stationmaster]

Interesting little layout there - ideal for the earlier years with most parallel moves catered for so well capable of intense working.  But then I get a little lost as many layouts, even on the Southern, were rationalised in the 1970s so while it might do for, say, a Holborn Viaduct type of location it doesn't really come out as a suburban or less urban type of terminus for the 1980s as by then they would be down to single leads and would have fewer platforms.

 

And in fact I immediately saw the plan, and intention, as a busy city centre type terminus with one parallel move missing to add to the fun of working it - if that's not what it is meant to be then think again and follow Signal Engineer's advice on some examples for simplified layouts; or roll the clock back to the early 1970s perhaps?

 

And platform width - follow the old situation - 6 feet clear between the platform edge and any fixed structures (although small columns were permitted within that distance.  So with no buildings on teh platforms you can go down to 12 feet = 48mm in 4mm scale (and soem of teh Inner London Southern termini had narrower platforms than that).

[DCB]

I saw a comment about scissors crossovers giving excessive track spacing, they do, but you can saw a very great deal off a peco short crossing and the frog end of Peco points and reduce the spacing quite considerably!, I did with my high level spare bedroom layout

[LNER4479]

I saw a comment about scissors crossovers giving excessive track spacing, they do, but you can saw a very great deal off a peco short crossing and the frog end of Peco points and reduce the spacing quite considerably!, I did with my high level spare bedroom layout

You mean like this?

This gives '10 foot' track spacings

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Just getting back to the plan I suggested for the 1980s. The slip road would only need to be used by trains departing from platform 2. So assuming all the other turnouts are 3ft radius, trains can arrive at any of the platforms - stock not wishing to use the slip road could be drawn out and propelled into one of the other platforms for departure.

Adds a little operational interest - after all, some termini did/do have restrictions over certain parts of their layout.

[DCB]

You mean like this?

230_1.jpg

This gives '10 foot' track spacings

Pretty much,though I might have trimmed a tiny bit more off than that  though it was 20 years ago and was plain turnouts not slips and it was removed to make way for my new born son's cot and he is 18 now.  The diamond is still in my scrap box, I will check it some time.

[mightbe]

If you're still wanting four(+?) platforms each capable of arrivals and departures (without the restrictions required if using a slip), why not just use a Shinohara double crossover (the larger one)?

 

Sure it's code 100 but that can be easily blended in. Especially good if you weren't wanting to slice up several peco turnouts and a diamond only to get something still wider than the 2" spacing. IIRC, the Shinohara double crossover has the 2" spacing and the minimum radius almost has to be above 36". In Anyrail, it appears comparable to Peco large radius (i.e., in the ballpark of 44"). I'm not sure how much it'd cost in the UK, but new from Walthers is about $70 (USD). They don't appear to have any in stock at the moment., but you can probably source one from somewhere else (don't know the availability of Shinohara in the UK).'

 

https://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/669-112

 

This page also has a link to a list of shops that have/had at least one within the last two years.

[Joseph_Pestell]

If you're still wanting four(+?) platforms each capable of arrivals and departures (without the restrictions required if using a slip), why not just use a Shinohara double crossover (the larger one)?

 

Sure it's code 100 but that can be easily blended in. Especially good if you weren't wanting to slice up several peco turnouts and a diamond only to get something still wider than the 2" spacing. IIRC, the Shinohara double crossover has the 2" spacing and the minimum radius almost has to be above 36". In Anyrail, it appears comparable to Peco large radius (i.e., in the ballpark of 44"). I'm not sure how much it'd cost in the UK, but new from Walthers is about $70 (USD). They don't appear to have any in stock at the moment., but you can probably source one from somewhere else (don't know the availability of Shinohara in the UK).'

 

https://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/669-112

 

This page also has a link to a list of shops that have/had at least one within the last two years.

Shinohara is available in the UK from ScaleLink. Used to be rather cheaper from them than at Walthers.

 

I don't remember the curve radius for the #6 but I am sure that it would be above 36". The #4 has a radius IIRC of 28".

 

The #6 is available in Code 83 which is closer to the RMWeb norm of Code 75.

 

(I suppose that I should declare an interest. It was me that first persuaded Bob Wyatt to import some Shinohara - mainly for our HO customers in mainland Europe. Subsequently, we sold lots of the Code 100 double crossovers to UK customers).

[Mike Storey]

Can I suggest using some (or all) Tillig S&C - you can introduce a curve to these slightly so it may give you the space you need without resorting to a slip? I have used a few in the past and it is a relatively simple job to match these to code 75. However, they are more delicate than Peco, so need more robust fixing and an operating mechanism that does not stress the blades.

[cromptonnut]

Can I suggest using some (or all) Tillig S&C - you can introduce a curve to these slightly so it may give you the space you need without resorting to a slip? I have used a few in the past and it is a relatively simple job to match these to code 75. However, they are more delicate than Peco, so need more robust fixing and an operating mechanism that does not stress the blades.

 

Assume you mean a slow action point motor rather than the Peco/Seep "thump" electromagnets?

[Mike Storey]

Assume you mean a slow action point motor rather than the Peco/Seep "thump" electromagnets?

 

That's one option as long as it is adjustable and maybe self-latching (otherwise it will continue to apply pressure on the blade - may be minor but I speak from a sudden failure, and I am still not sure why), or manual operation via bowden cable with an omega loop or other self-adjusting contraption. But, by jiminy, don't use solenoids on Tilligs unless you are very rich and have a manservant (personservant these days?) who can change out each point as it fails.......now I shall wait for someone to say they have used them for hundreds of years, operated by 10ib sledgehammers, with no problems whatsoever.