Minories on the Western Region

[turtlebah]

Hi RM Web Community,

 

I'm seeking some feedback on a couple of track plans that i'm currently toying with.

 

I'm currently embarking on my very first model railway project. Having been an enthusiast for years, i've finally moved into a new house with space (albeit a small one) for a model railway. Inspired by Minories (GN) and Birmingham Moor Street my main aim was to try and maximise the space on offer and operate a busy layout - hence the decision to go for an inner city suburban terminus.

 

The era is 1955 to 1961 on the Western Region. Located somewhere in or around Bristol the idea is that the terminus receives local branchline services as well as commuter trains from Bristol, Bath, Yeovil and the SW (i might even try and sneak the odd Southern engine on).

 

I've come up with two track plans, that although very similar have 1 fundamental difference. Both plans, and the associated stations, cater mostly for passenger traffic although there is a large goods facility.

 

Plan 1 -

 

A small goods reception siding and a goods shed with a 3 platform terminus. Point work is designed so that any train for either platform 1, 2 or 3 can enter on the up line and exit on the down line. My main concern with this plan is that any shunting into the goods shed would have to come back onto the mainline, which doesn't seem very realistic.

 

There is a loco spur for the station pilot or any light engine post bringing in a local passenger service. This is opposite the goods reception siding, but means that the bay platform can have a siding run off it that can be used as a factory or warehouse siding, which adds a bit of operational intrigue.

 

Plan 2 - 

 

In plan 2 the station point work is essentially the same, but the loco spur is now a head shunt for the goods shed and goods reception siding. This in turn means the loco spur and water tower siding has to run off the bay platform, which again isn't ideal, but slightly more realistic. Once in the bay platform entrance it's fairly easy for any engine to reach any other platform or the goods yard in just a couple of moves.

 

I feel like plan 2 is more realistic in terms of operation than plan 1. Unfortunately i'm very restricted for space and can't really go beyond the dimensions shown. I've just about squeezed it all in to allow for 4 and 5 coach trains in the platforms.

 

Any advice would be very welcome.

 

Kind regards,

Nick

Edited May 2, 2017 by turtlebah

[Joseph_Pestell]

Basically good but, as you say, there is a problem for departing goods trains.

 

Since the baseboards are fairly narrow, I think the likely solution is to turn things round and have the goods area below (as drawn on the plan) the platforms.

[mdjr78]

I would go for just two platform faces in stead of three. The platform could be located between track 1 and 2. Track 3 can act as a loop and goods reception siding.

 

I think plan 2 is better on the loco spur. I think it looks better to replace the double slip in the goods yard by two points.

 

Werner

[turtlebah]

I would go for just two platform faces in stead of three. The platform could be located between track 1 and 2. Track 3 can act as a loop and goods reception siding.

 

I think plan 2 is better on the loco spur. I think it looks better to replace the double slip in the goods yard by two points.

 

Werner

 

Thanks for the feedback. I quite like the idea of having just 2 platforms (i.e. 1 island platform) which should allow me to add an extra loop in as a goods arrival service. This means that goods trains can then access all roads as well.

 

I didn't want to loose the idea of a busy passenger service at the station, which is it's main purpose, but with the platform lengths being as long as they are it can not only handle 5 coach commuter trains, but also 2 DMUs or branch trains at once by having a 1A and 1B for example. Having an Island platform probably means I can extend the length a little.

 

Updated track plan to follow...

[TJ52]

As it's a Western region layout why not check out Uxbridge Vine St for some ideas?

[Stubby47]

If you put the trailing cross-over which is next to the platform entrance beyond the leading cross-over (on the curves) you'd extend the platform lines and allow goods to leave directly.

 

[turtlebah]

As it's a Western region layout why not check out Uxbridge Vine St for some ideas?

 

Thanks TJ52 - that's really helpful.

[Mulgabill]

If you'd like a prototypical basis, in the area you mention, with an Island platform - try Portishead. It was re-built quite late on and is

therefore more "toy train" like in layout. Which means it may fit you space limitations better than some older places.

 

All the best

 

TONY

Edited May 3, 2017 by Mulgabill

[danstercivicman]

Have a look at my minories Birmingham Hope Street if you like it's a GC themed minories

 

The minories layout design thread is also helpful

[turtlebah]

Have a look at my minories Birmingham Hope Street if you like it's a GC themed minories

 

The minories layout design thread is also helpful

 

Although i didn't reference it earlier, your layout has already provided some much needed inspiration. An excellent model.

 

Unfortunately i don't quite have enough space for the traditional Minories configuration so i'm trying to be a bit cure about it.

[turtlebah]

So, after reviewing all the incredibly helpful comments i've come up with 3 alternative track plans.

 

Plan 1 - The Original (mk2)

 

 

This is virtually my original plan, but i have now moved the trailing crossover to be just under the fiddle yard entrance thus giving more platform road space. This also means that goods trains can enter on the up line and leave on the down line without a complicated shunting manoeuvre.

 

Plan 2 - Bradfield inspired

 

 

Taking on board the comments above i've moved the goods shed to the bottom of the plan, which allows for a much longer platform 1. Inspiration is taken from Bradfield Gloucester Square on this one (a superb layout). The loco spur is more in keeping with the traditional Minories track plan. Goods trains can come and go as they please on either road. The loop in platform 3 doubling as a head shunt also means that shunting goods trains into formation may be a little easier.

 

Plan 3 - Island Platform

 

 

Here i've gone with an island platform as suggested above and similar to a couple of prototypes suggested. I think i've made a bit of a mess of the goods yard formation here. Unfortunately i don't have much space to play with so the headshunt looks a little odd.

 

Thoughts on the above would be welcome - i think i'm even more confused then when i started, although i do still have a soft spot for plan #1.

 

 

[dpgibbons]

As an alternative approach I suggest you devise a busy operating timetable then see how readily it can be accommodated by your various designs. A suburban station like this will have very intense peak hour traffic that reverses direction during the day and a large number of ECS workings so the ability to handle that is going to be a big factor in designing the layout.

 

Generally I think you have overprovisioned for the goods facilities. A small yard like this probably needs only one or two services a day, so a dedicated reception road is a luxury in the confined space; goods services would likely be scheduled for off-peak hours and could use the platform roads to run-around. And you don't really need a headshunt either if the goods shed road is long enough to allow wagons to be shunted in the shed without blocking the platform road. A dedicated industry (Parcels? Milk?) might be a more plausible reason for a yard being squeezed onto such a small site with no coal facilities.

 

On the passenger side a high intensity service would require rapid turnaround of loco-hauled arrivals. Unless you have a station pilot, Plan 1 allows only P2 to be used for arrivals and the need to allow loco release would greatly limit use of P1 (incidentally, it would be more realistic to reverse the crossover to make P1 the arrivals platform with direct access for incoming trains). A scissors would allow you to use both platforms. Plan 3 would allow both platforms to be used if the P2 crossover was reversed so the loss of a platform probably won't be an issue. Plan 2 would need a station pilot and require all arriving loco-hauled trains to be drawn into the fiddle yard. Alternatively you could assume that during peak hours the arriving loco propels its train as ECS to carriage sidings offstage. 

Edited May 4, 2017 by dpgibbons

[danstercivicman]

Although i didn't reference it earlier, your layout has already provided some much needed inspiration. An excellent model.

 

Unfortunately i don't quite have enough space for the traditional Minories configuration so i'm trying to be a bit cure about it.

Glad it's helped

 

Sheffield Exchange by Clive Mortimore is also worth a look, he has used double slip and single slip to maximise the space, it's pretty ingenious

[danstercivicman]

So, after reviewing all the incredibly helpful comments i've come up with 3 alternative track plans.

 

Plan 1 - The Original (mk2)

 

Track Plan 1.JPG

 

This is virtually my original plan, but i have now moved the trailing crossover to be just under the fiddle yard entrance thus giving more platform road space. This also means that goods trains can enter on the up line and leave on the down line without a complicated shunting manoeuvre.

 

Plan 2 - Bradfield inspired

 

Track Plan 2.JPG

 

Taking on board the comments above i've moved the goods shed to the bottom of the plan, which allows for a much longer platform 1. Inspiration is taken from Bradfield Gloucester Square on this one (a superb layout). The loco spur is more in keeping with the traditional Minories track plan. Goods trains can come and go as they please on either road. The loop in platform 3 doubling as a head shunt also means that shunting goods trains into formation may be a little easier.

 

Plan 3 - Island Platform

 

Track Plan 3.JPG

 

Here i've gone with an island platform as suggested above and similar to a couple of prototypes suggested. I think i've made a bit of a mess of the goods yard formation here. Unfortunately i don't have much space to play with so the headshunt looks a little odd.

 

Thoughts on the above would be welcome - i think i'm even more confused then when i started, although i do still have a soft spot for plan #1.

Personally no1 and no3 would be my options, I would probably lose the goods facilities and do a milk dock instead.

 

Have a look at Smallwood for an upper level station and a lower level goods yard.

 

A chap called Katheron? (Not sure on spelling) also has some excellent info on milk docks

[turtlebah]

Glad it's helped

 

Sheffield Exchange by Clive Mortimore is also worth a look, he has used double slip and single slip to maximise the space, it's pretty ingenious

 

Sheffield Exchange track layout has proved very helpful - It's a shame the layout isn't going to be finished.

 

To be honest I think i'm trying to over complicate the track plan rather than remembering why i wanted to build this layout in the first place. Back to the drawing board later with a simpler version in mind.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Not sure what you are planning for the fiddleyard end, but you could simplify the station by having the freight side more separate from the passenger with the goods trains leaving on a separate single line.

[Clive Mortimore]

Sheffield Exchange track layout has proved very helpful - It's a shame the layout isn't going to be finished.

 

To be honest I think i'm trying to over complicate the track plan rather than remembering why i wanted to build this layout in the first place. Back to the drawing board later with a simpler version in mind.

Hi Nick

 

Thanks for your kind words about Sheffield Exchange.

 

A trick when planning a layout is to think like the railway directors, and chief officers. The directors don't want to waste their investment, the chief of operating department wants a workable station, over complication cost time (and money) and the chief engineer wants an easy life.

[mdjr78]

Just a 'Less = More' thought on plan 3. In this case less rails = more scenery. And it probably fits Clive's comments.

 

 

The factory and goods shed/ milk dock should provide in enough shunting possibilities.

 

Werner

[turtlebah]

Hi Nick

 

Thanks for your kind words about Sheffield Exchange.

 

A trick when planning a layout is to think like the railway directors, and chief officers. The directors don't want to waste their investment, the chief of operating department wants a workable station, over complication cost time (and money) and the chief engineer wants an easy life.

 

Thanks for the advice. I was most certainly not thinking like a railway director and instead more like a modeller that wanted to cram too much in.

 

I think I've settled on a plan for now - one that unashamedly draws most of it's inspiration from Sheffield Exchange. The only addition is that i've added in a goods shed road to serve the warehouses located nearby (which will now make up the back scene).

 

I don't think it's a problem that the any shunting into the warehouse road will have to come from the down main as traffic to the siding will be minimal and when thinking about the local timetable would only happen during quite periods. The run round in platform 1 allows for this.

 

Looking forward to your following your next modelling adventure and thanks again for the words of wisdom.

 

[Karhedron]

A chap called Katheron? (Not sure on spelling) also has some excellent info on milk docks

 

Did someone call? 

 

Milk is a good choice of non-passenger traffic for an urban station as the handling facilities were usually pretty compact. Unlike bulk goods, it was quite common to have bottling plants near stations (the IMS plant at Rossmore Road next to Marylebone is a favourite example). Milk trains could be fairly compact but still justify a top-link express loco. This shot shows 5014 Goodrich Castle near Wormwood Scrubs with a train of milk tanks returning to the west country from the Wood Lane bottling plant in 1957. A Castle with just 6 tankers should fit on quite a modest layout.

 

Edited May 4, 2017 by Karhedron

[Karhedron]

By Nationalisation, I believe the fresh milk flows were almost all into London but since it is such a great traffic to model, I would definitely make this a case of Rule 1. Someone asked about bottling plants recently on another thread so I will start with a link to there. If you have any questions, I will do my best to help.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/117470-birmingham-hope-st-br-ex-gcr-minories-style-urban-layout-1965/?p=2702887

[muddys-blues]

Hi Nick, interesting layout plan, but another food for thought is to say why does all the pointwork on the station approach have to be seen on the scenic section .... if you was to use a traverser type FY why not have more plain track around the station and station throat ? and use the traverser to have trains approaching on the "wrong" line into the station platforms, sometimes simpler is more effective than complicated.

 

Best regards

Craig.

[turtlebah]

 

Did someone call? 

 

Milk is a good choice of non-passenger traffic for an urban station as the handling facilities were usually pretty compact. Unlike bulk goods, it was quite common to have bottling plants near stations (the IMS plant at Rossmore Road next to Marylebone is a favourite example). Milk trains could be fairly compact but still justify a top-link express loco. This shot shows 5014 Goodrich Castle near Wormwood Scrubs with a train of milk tanks returning to the west country from the Wood Lane bottling plant in 1957. A Castle with just 6 tankers should fit on quite a modest layout.

 

 

Very interesting photo and yet more food for thought. Lovely shot of a very dirty Castle.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Another layout worth looking at on here for its track plan is West Kirby. Quite similar to what you are trying to achieve.

[5BarVT]

And Halifax Powell St.