Modified Minories opinions/sanity check

[Coder Tim]

Hi,

 

I've been lurking on and off for ages and have finally signed up.  I've got a layout plan that I'd appreciate any feedback or advice on.  My eventual plan is a largeish point to point system in n but I want to make sure that I can model and operate satisfactorily in that scale first.  I'd also like to have something up and running whilst working on the rest.  As such I've isolated a section from the grand plan that I think would work on it's own.  It's supposed to be a modified version of the well-worn Minories scheme.  The first attached image is output from the Templot plan I've been working on.

 

The context is that it will be the terminus of a commuter branch separating from the mainline at a junction station that is one stop from a major city terminus.  The setting would be West Yorkshire in the Steam/Diesel transition, mostly ex-LMS  (particularly the Midland) with some LNER locos getting into the mix.

 

I've also attached an artist's impression of the larger system done in SCARM for context.  The current plan will fit on the left edge (although it only has two platform faces in the SCARM image).  As you can probably tell varied operation is the priority, although I think it's too busy at the moment but it was just the result of a quick brainstorming session.

 

The main thing I'd like to know is if I've done anything obviously stupid or if there is anything you would recommend changing in the Minories plan?  Additionally does this seem like a reasonable size station for this context?  I was initially planning a two platform version but much prefer the three.

 

Best wishes,

 

Tim

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think that looks very good.

 

As others have commented on the Minories thread, the great weakness of the original Minories is completely unnecessary/unrealistic reverse curves. By putting the whole station on a curve, you get away from that problem.

 

You also have the extra link that enables a more intensive service (trains able to leave platform 2 simultaneous with an arrival at platform 3).

 

So, good operationally. But perhaps almost too good for a secondary branch terminus anywhere outside of London or Glasgow.

[Karhedron]

Excellent plan. It looks operationally sound and the track flows nicely. As an urban/suburban terminus, the slips are easily justified in your period as land was more expensive than complex turnouts in built-up areas.

 

I look forward to seeing it take shape.

[kevinlms]

I think that looks very good.

 

As others have commented on the Minories thread, the great weakness of the original Minories is completely unnecessary/unrealistic reverse curves. By putting the whole station on a curve, you get away from that problem.

 

You also have the extra link that enables a more intensive service (trains able to leave platform 2 simultaneous with an arrival at platform 3).

 

So, good operationally. But perhaps almost too good for a secondary branch terminus anywhere outside of London or Glasgow.

I was under the impression that in later years, curved platforms such as shown were frowned upon, primarily due to sighting issues - i.e. a departing train would have problems checking that the platform was clear of passengers., thus needing an additional station staff member near the centre of the train.

A compromise, as always, between reverse curse & station sighting issues.

[Coder Tim]

Excellent, thanks all!

 

I like the curved throat but would prefer the platforms to be straighter but the space constraints mean they can't be.

 

I agree about it being a bit over capacity for the location.  I really want the two separate platforms as I'm not a huge fan of islands but if I don't have the third face then I can't make the run-round in the goods area work.  Unless I made the third face goods and parcels only.  Then again I'm planning on running nine coach expresses headed by pacifics on the main line which wouldn't have run between cities in West Yorkshire either so maybe in my fictional West Yorkshire, Leeds and Bradford joined into one giant city that rivaled London...

 

I can't take credit for the extra link to platform 3, I saw that in the Minories on a viaduct thread and stole it shamelessly.  I mean was inspired by it.

 

Anyway it sounds like it will work as a layout so I should get on with building it.  Just need to tweak some of the curves and wait for an n track gauge to come through the post then I'll set up a build thread in the appropriate forum.

 

Thanks again,

 

Tim

[Pacific231G]

Excellent, thanks all!

 

I like the curved throat but would prefer the platforms to be straighter but the space constraints mean they can't be.

 

I agree about it being a bit over capacity for the location.  I really want the two separate platforms as I'm not a huge fan of islands but if I don't have the third face then I can't make the run-round in the goods area work.  Unless I made the third face goods and parcels only.  Then again I'm planning on running nine coach expresses headed by pacifics on the main line which wouldn't have run between cities in West Yorkshire either so maybe in my fictional West Yorkshire, Leeds and Bradford joined into one giant city that rivaled London...

 

I can't take credit for the extra link to platform 3, I saw that in the Minories on a viaduct thread and stole it shamelessly.  I mean was inspired by it.

 

Anyway it sounds like it will work as a layout so I should get on with building it.  Just need to tweak some of the curves and wait for an n track gauge to come through the post then I'll set up a build thread in the appropriate forum.

 

Thanks again,

 

Tim

The BofT probably did frown on curved platforms, that's why they weren't used at Bristol TM, Poole, Brighton, Dorchester South  (alright David, you've made your point that's enough curved platforms for today!!)

The curved approach works well with no reverse curves meaning you can get away with smaller radius points. Unless you want to have it for appearance, sense of busyness, etc  I  wondered about the slip in the main throat as two back to back points would be only marginally longer and less prone to unpleasant behaviour. The one in the goods area is less critical.

I think the extra link to platform three came from me but it's not copyright; it's a standard feature of busy termini to provide non conflicting routes  between any two platforms and the relevant sides of the main and in your plan it also allows an arriving goods loco to  run round its train while departures can still stake place from platform  1 & 2. . Unless you want it specifically as a loco layover track I'd be inclined to extend the uppermost track behind platform one for parcels etc. even though it's departure only. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

I was under the impression that in later years, curved platforms such as shown were frowned upon, primarily due to sighting issues - i.e. a departing train would have problems checking that the platform was clear of passengers., thus needing an additional station staff member near the centre of the train.

A compromise, as always, between reverse curse & station sighting issues.

 

No doubt the risks of curved platforms were well understood and avoided where possible. But in crowded city locations they are fairly common. Glasgow St Enoch was probably the best example.

[New Haven Neil]

How about Newcastle Central with a hint of a reverse curve in the platforms!

[Coder Tim]

I like the idea of extending the loco spur as a parcels road, it would definitely fill a gap.

 

The main reason for the slip in the throat is to give the impression of a cramped urban site.  I hadn't thought about it from a reliability point of view.  I've just had a quick bash at replacing it with back to back turnouts and it looks a bit too expansive.  I'll have to have a think about if I can live with that for the sake of better reliability.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I like the idea of extending the loco spur as a parcels road, it would definitely fill a gap.

 

The main reason for the slip in the throat is to give the impression of a cramped urban site.  I hadn't thought about it from a reliability point of view.  I've just had a quick bash at replacing it with back to back turnouts and it looks a bit too expansive.  I'll have to have a think about if I can live with that for the sake of better reliability.

 

I think that you are right that the slip looks much better. Quite difficult to build in N though!

[Peter Kazmierczak]

It looks an excellent design with lots of potential. The curved throat reminds me of Southport Lord Street, whilst there are echoes of Birkenhead Woodside in my eyes too.

 

Hope I've drawn out the plan correctly as I found it a little hard to decipher at first.I assume it's a single slip in the station throat.

 

 

I'd be inclined to have the spur as an additional platform (#1), even if it's only used in peak hours for passenger traffic or for stabling parcels/other vehicles. It's no bad thing that trains can't arrive at all the platforms - it adds operational interest and would be very typical of the period you're modelling.

 

I see the station more as a city terminus than a suburban branch though - rather like Birkenhead or Bradford Exchange, where mainline arrivals were often portions off much longer trains.

[Pacific231G]

I like the idea of extending the loco spur as a parcels road, it would definitely fill a gap.

 

The main reason for the slip in the throat is to give the impression of a cramped urban site.  I hadn't thought about it from a reliability point of view.  I've just had a quick bash at replacing it with back to back turnouts and it looks a bit too expansive.  I'll have to have a think about if I can live with that for the sake of better reliability.

The parcels road doesn't have to be full length- it could be a bay with the station buildings beyond.

 

This is my favourite real curved approach and was about as cramped an urban site as you could wish for.

http://forum.e-train.fr/trains/download/file.php?id=329122

http://forum.e-train.fr/trains/download/file.php?id=329123

Wiith one exception it was made up entirely from standard left and right handed turnouts with unusually sharp 1 in 7.7 (7^o30) crossing angles (0.13 tangents) . These were normally used only for goods sidings but, with no reverse curves, the terminus (Paris Bastille) could handle vestibuled main line carriages without any problems.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Before I started on the shed layout, I laid out Paris Bastille using Peco code 83 #8s on a bedroom floor... it looked awesome!

 

Anyway, here's one easy way to give access to all platforms, plus a handy spur for the station pilot.

 

 

Good luck - nothing beats a busy steam era terminus for operating fun.  

[Coder Tim]

Thanks all!  You got the plan spot on, sorry it was a little confused I hadn't discovered Templot's diagram mode at that point.

 

I've tweaked some of the curves to smooth things out a bit and made the platforms a widening transition which gets rid of the slightly drunk look they had before.  I've also extended the loco spur into a proper platform face.  I'm happy with it being departures only for now as the extra crossover needed for it to reach the down line extends beyond the space constraint for this plan.  I've also had a go at replacing the slip with back to back turnouts.  Output of both versions attached.

 

Now that it's grown in scope a bit I'm thinking I'd quite like to run tender locos.  Thinking mainly 3fs and black fives.  I'd need a turntable though.  It's quite easy to fit one in but I'm not sure if it looks ridiculous or not?  I'm also not sure if it would actually be necessary or if tender-first running would have been permitted?  I would doubt it but I'm not an expert on the regulations.

 

Best wishes,

 

Tim

[Chimer]

Your tender locos could always run light engine to be turned at the (off-scene) MPD ....... via loco-lift?

 

They would arguably have come further than tanks on more local services, so would be less likely to run round to take their train out again immediately. 

[Coder Tim]

Good point about the engine running light to an off-scene shed.  I've removed the table but left the siding as extra goods storage.  I've also managed to fit in the back to back turnouts instead of the slip but only by making one of the turnouts a tandem.  It looks ok to me and I think it should be as reliable as regular turnouts.

[fender]

love the track plan. can't wait to see it built! good luck.

[Karhedron]

Now that it's grown in scope a bit I'm thinking I'd quite like to run tender locos.  Thinking mainly 3fs and black fives.  I'd need a turntable though.  It's quite easy to fit one in but I'm not sure if it looks ridiculous or not?  I'm also not sure if it would actually be necessary or if tender-first running would have been permitted?  I would doubt it but I'm not an expert on the regulations.

 

The turn-table looks fine. Marylebone had a turntable right at the platform end and Paddington had one just a stone's throw away at Ranelagh Bridge.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_05_2014/post-887-0-01717000-1398976465.jpg

 

Tender first running would have been permitted for light engine moves but they would have been at limited speed (possibly 25mph but don't quote me on that) so they would not have hauled trains out like that. But running to an off-scene MPD for coal, water and turning would be fine too.

[kevinlms]

Thanks all!  You got the plan spot on, sorry it was a little confused I hadn't discovered Templot's diagram mode at that point.

 

I've tweaked some of the curves to smooth things out a bit and made the platforms a widening transition which gets rid of the slightly drunk look they had before.  I've also extended the loco spur into a proper platform face.  I'm happy with it being departures only for now as the extra crossover needed for it to reach the down line extends beyond the space constraint for this plan.  I've also had a go at replacing the slip with back to back turnouts.  Output of both versions attached.

 

Now that it's grown in scope a bit I'm thinking I'd quite like to run tender locos.  Thinking mainly 3fs and black fives.  I'd need a turntable though.  It's quite easy to fit one in but I'm not sure if it looks ridiculous or not?  I'm also not sure if it would actually be necessary or if tender-first running would have been permitted?  I would doubt it but I'm not an expert on the regulations.

 

Best wishes,

 

Tim

With all the curved platforms, what coupling method are you going to use? Many coupling systems are very difficult to couple up on curved track.

I'd be doing some experiments, before going ahead with a track plan that is full of potential problems.

[Joseph_Pestell]

The arrangement of the freight siding (left of plan) is not quite right perhaps. Train can not depart from there so needs to be shunted to platform 3 (or 4 if loco spur becomes 1). So access to headshunt needs to be reversed.

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Tim

 

Whenever there is a "Minories" thread there are people who advise about not using reverse curves and routing of trains that will block departure platforms. Don't worry about these the real thing didn't they just got on with things. Take Kings Cross. Trains could only enter platforms 5 to 15 from the up relief line which tended to block most other movements. Departing trains from platform 1 to 7 using the Down main number 1 line stopped any arrivals coming in on the up relief. Coupled with this all loco movements included a double reversal into the tunnel and back out again. I think Kings Cross would be a tad busier than a typical "Minories" type layout. I use to love seeing the trains snake out of the Cross over that complicated point work.

 

[Coder Tim]

Couplings is a very good point.  I just bent a piece of flex track to the minimum radius of my platform roads and the rapidos I have currently work most of the time but can be a bit finicky.  Eventually I'm thinking DGs which from looking at the design should work reasonably well on curves but if anyone has any experience of this it would be good to get some feedback?

 

I prefer the plan without the turntable and I like the idea of light engine moves so I think I'll stick with it as an extra storage road.

 

If I reverse the headshunt connection then I'll either loose the extra run-round space it provides or have to make the headshunt itself quite short so I think I'll just take the hit of having to use the down line to shunt goods trains into a road connected to the up line.

 

The next thing I'm considering is standards.  I was originally planning on n but since I've just finished a P4 turnout I do like the neatness of scale flangeways so now I'm thinking maybe 2fs with re-wheeled n stock.  I'm not overly worried about the re-wheeling but I am about the curvatures.  In places I've had to go down to 12 inches and I don't know if this will work in 2fs.  If everything I run is re-wheeled n then it should have the same side-play but the flanges aren't going to provide as much lateral push before derailing.  Does anyone know if 12inch curves work at speed in 2fs?  Probably a better question for the 2fs forum but it's relevant to this thread.

 

I love the throat of Kings Cross, now that would be a challenge to model!

[t-b-g]

I think that the reason some people are not keen on reverse curves in a model application are because we tend to use tighter curves than the real thing and bogie carriages can end up with buffers and corridor connections pointing in opposite directions!

 

Putting the station throat on a curve so that crossovers are either on a continuous curve or avoid tight reverse curves was something that was done by Peter Denny on Buckingham (especially the present version). That has a brilliantly designed station throat in what appears at first glance to be way too short a distance to include the pointwork. It is achieved by clever use of Y points but in such a way that trains only do a gentle "snake" through them.

 

Tony

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hi Tim

 

Whenever there is a "Minories" thread there are people who advise about not using reverse curves and routing of trains that will block departure platforms. Don't worry about these the real thing didn't they just got on with things. Take Kings Cross. Trains could only enter platforms 5 to 15 from the up relief line which tended to block most other movements. Departing trains from platform 1 to 7 using the Down main number 1 line stopped any arrivals coming in on the up relief. Coupled with this all loco movements included a double reversal into the tunnel and back out again. I think Kings Cross would be a tad busier than a typical "Minories" type layout. I use to love seeing the trains snake out of the Cross over that complicated point work.

 

kings cross rma.png

 

That diagram actually shows very little by way of reverse curves. The GN made a very good job of putting a complex track layout in a very confined space. But Kings Cross (14 platforms) is not Minories anyway. Platforms 1&2 on Minories are directly opposite the tunnel mouth and yet the tracks zigzag around the signal box. No real railway would do that. They would put the signalbox on the other side of the tracks or, if really tight for space, on a gantry.

 

Having said that, CJ Freezer always made the very valid point that a layout should not be too easy to operate as that takes the fun out of it.

[Coder Tim]

A very tentative start has been made on construction but nothing worth starting a thread for yet.  In the mean time I've been designing the larger layout that the station will sit in.  This has led to some changes to the station, a few of which have several alternatives that I'm not sure about.  The station looks very different but the layout is unchanged, it's just the geometry.  The platforms are longer and straighter, and the throat curves in the opposite direction.  I've also added a shed based loosely on Kings Cross's Passenger Loco Shed.  I'm going to have more locos than trains and want them to be visible on-scene.  As always any general feedback is appreciated.

 

Specific things:

 

I'm almost certainly going to replace the top connection to the shed with an extra road next to platform 1.  I've drawn this in dark green.  I could leave the connection from platform 1 with the red strike-through, or I could replace it with one in the opposite direction like the one in lime green, or I could have neither.  I'm not sure if either of the options would be of any actual benefit?

 

The road in the shed that connects the three approaches to the table (the slip with the other two red strike-throughs): I like it visually as it breaks up the space but it involves some complex track-work and doesn't seem to have much actual use.  It also ties up another loco holding point.  I didn't have a purpose in mind when including it but the shed it's based on had one, what would it's purpose have been?

 

I'm completely torn on the turnout drawn in purple.  Operationally it makes complete sense and simplifies things massively but visually I think it works a lot better to have the road for coaling and ash disposal not connected at the top.  How much harder would it be to operate without that turnout?  Access to coal and dropping the ash would only be possible via the table, but presumably any loco needing those services would need to be turned as well.  Would those things have locos parked for a long time blocking the rest of the road?