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. 

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.

The shade of white or beige used for the intercity livery is a bit of a red herring on a 73. 

In the original intercity livery with the large double arrow logo it was beige, and did match the coaches. However once the Gatwick express started to be treated as a separate brand in the late 80's the livery was changed to a white lower band, but still with intercity branding. Later after it was privatized the red stripe became thinner, and the intercity branding was removed. For a time there was unbranded versions of both running about together, what became the EWS locos kept the beige lower band. 

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. 

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.

Admittedly this was a fully fitted train, but I always thought the speed through the points was pushing his luck. Jump to 4.00 minutes in for reversal into the yard.

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?

1 hour ago, cnw6847 said:

 

A view of the length of the layout. Just the upper storage tracks to lay..

My brother has suggested scenicing the second board and add a third fiddle yard board. Possibly.

 

Looking good! I'm inclined to agree with your brother about adding a second scenic board, it's easier to do it now rather than rip it about later. But, I suggest before going any further with the scenic works on the existing boards, run some trains with what's all ready there. Make sure the layout works to your liking, incase you want to adjust siding lengths or add points ect.

If you do want to add a second board, this pic is all the inspiration you need: 

-You could move the CT building back to ease the curve in their siding, and create a concrete yard area for their trucks to park up. -lots of interesting scenic work there.

-Cross the high level tracks over the low level tracks as in that pic, makes hiding the exit tracks alot easier.

-You can use some of the space to extend the fiddle yard if needed, points take up alot of space. 

2 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

All blue is used for a FPL, also a clearance bar (if you can find any these days)

 

Blue over black is used where one lever combines the function of throwing the point and locking it - this woud be a power-worked point (point motors have point locking built-in) or an "economic FPL" (common MR mechanical practice, not much used elsewhere)

 

Blue over brown is the standard colour for a Release, a Bolt locking lever, a Direction lever or an Annets Key lever.

On the Banbury GF photo I can actually read the lever plate - it says "Release"

Lever 2 reads Down Relief Down Siding

As Jeremy says, there's no need for an FPL as it's only a trailijng connection on a Down Line.

The SB Diagram has a note that (GF)1 released by 10 lever in the box.

The horizontal bars secured to levers lock them such that you can't pull 3 without first pulling 2, which you can't pull until you pulled 1, although this is not shown on the lever pull plates.

So for a ground frame on the SR, am I correct in thinking I need two blue levers and one black?

Lever 1 blue over brown - Release

Lever 2 blue - Facing point lock

Lever 3 black - Throw point

1 hour ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

The platform points look to be operated from the box, and this ground frame works one end of the single slip (the end nearest the platform) and the far siding points.

 

It looks like it's electrically locked from the signalbox, with a backlock on lever 1 (GF release). One of the buttons on the left will be to lift the backlock once the the signaller has pulled the appropriate lever in the box. I expect the other button sounds a buzzer in the box, requesting the ground frame to be released.

 

Lever 1 is half blue, implying an FPL, but I can't see one, and it's not on the lead. Perhaps blue has another meaning I am not aware of.

 

Lever 3 is spare.

Thanks, I found a picture of the signal box diagram after a search. Would the third spare lever originally have been to throw the points marked as (3) on the diagram? 

I had another look around and I think I've found a similar prototype for the track layout at Banbury station. 

The down platform relief line had what appears to be an un-signaled trailing connection to a pair of sidings about half way along it's length, there was a 3 lever ground frame provided even though the signal box is only at the platform end. Am I correct in thinking thinking this would be worked in the same way 5BarVT describes a few post's ago?   https://www.roscalen.com/signals/Banbury/South.htm

6 hours ago, DCB said:

The signalling problem comes from the illogical track layout.      I would expect the milk dock point to be operated from the signal box, locked in the straight position when either starter or home signals are off.   But I would not expect the station to have a milk dock.  Milk was typically dealt with at passenger platforms, loaded and especially unloaded., off peak in London.  It was a fairly quick operation, rolling churns around on their edges prior to going to tankers.
The dock would never have a "Train" enter, just a few wagons propelled in.  "Dock" platforms are often higher than the 3ft passenger platform maximum to make loading vans easier.; 

It's not really a problem, more of a puzzle that I needed the rules confirming before I play.

The milk dock as I call it is outside of the main station, it isnt connected to the station concourse at all. There is a milk bottling plant besides the station just like there used to be at Vauxhall, except I've given it a dedicated unloading siding as opposed to blocking a platform in the terminus. Some shunting is required to run around the train, and get the brake coach/van out of the way so the tanks can be propelled into the dock.

4 hours ago, Grovenor said:

The ground frame needs to be locked normal for any move entering the platform so that would be home signal or any shunt signal giving access. Once a train has arrived in the platform the shunter can be given the ground frame release and do the shunting.

No need to lock the platform starter as its not conflicting and may be needed in case the train needs to pass the signal before the tail end has cleared the siding.. The shunter will need to put the ground frame back to normal or any subsequent arrivals will be locked out.

 

If the points were operated from the signal box then it would be usual for the starter to lock the points in either position for route holding. But this doesn't work with a GF and its the shunter on the ground who has the responsibility for not moving the points under a train.

Thanks for the explanation on how such a layout would be operated, it helps me plan the shunting sequence to get everything where it needs to be.

Just so I understand things fully a train cannot arrive directly into the siding as the ground frame must be locked to clear the signal into the platform, but a train can depart from the siding directly as the platform starter is not interlocked with the groundframe.

It's certainly going to be an involving task when it comes time for the milk train arrival, as the full sequence involves a runaround move using the other two platforms before it gets to this one. The fun part will be trying to do it all between the local passenger traffic.

1 hour ago, RailWest said:

>>>>I'm guessing I'd need a "limit of shunt" board on the platform starter signal post too?...

 

No :-) The signal is your limit of shunt. LoS boards are for wrong-direction movements in locations where otherwise there would be no signal.

Thanks, I'm still learning about how some of these things are used! 

Thanks for your input gentlemen, the closest example of such a situation I can find is Baker street on the Met railway. That had a very similar arrangement for the Chiltern court coal siding.

This isnt a busy terminus station, more urban backwater than Waterloo. So if we say a 3 lever ground frame with a release lever, a facing point lock lever, and then the points themselves, that should cover it? I'm guessing I'd need a "limit of shunt" board on the platform starter signal post too?

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

There would obviously have to be a trap.

Quite right, which leads me on to another question.

How many levers in the ground frame, 2 or 3? I assume a release lever of some sort, then a lever to throw the points, but would the trap point be on the same lever or separate?

1 hour ago, 5BarVT said:

A GF is the easiest way to implement it as it needs no other signalling (#): GF normal, operates as any other platform road; GF released, shunter in control of the platform.

# - slightly more tricky if the shunter needs to go out beyond the starting signal due to insufficient length between the point and signal.

Paul.

Thanks, that's what I thought the operation might be like. The idea I had for it was an 08 to trip 2 or 3 milk tanks into the dock and depart again light engine, so in theory it shouldn't need to shunt past the platform starter. However if it did need to go out past the starter would it require a shunt ahead signal below the platform starter, or be done by some other method?

1 hour ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

Am I right in thinking that the ground frame would need to be interlocked with the platform starter?

 

Obviously the ground frame is interlocked with the home signal.

I would need to be able to use the platform starter to depart from the milk dock, as the rear of the train might not clear the points.

2 hours ago, RailWest said:

A quick sketch would help a lot to have a better understanding :-)

 

Why do you think it would be on a GF rather than worked from the SB?

Had a quick go in paint, it doesn't show the entire layout but just that platform road. I assumed a ground frame as it seems a similar situation to a loco release crossover between two platfrom roads, alot of those were hand worked even at larger stations.

The platform line is the outermost of three platform roads, which run into an overall roof. The milk dock line diverges just before the lines go under the roof, so the milk dock is outside the main building.

1 minute ago, Rivercider said:

I am no signalling expert, so won't comment on details, but it might be important to have more information.

Which railway built and operated the station, and when is it set as signalling arrangements might vary over time,

 

cheers 

Good point, thanks. 

Station was built by the LCDR and maybe the LBSCR, but its set in the late 1960's to early 1970's. Still using the steam era track and signals, but with blue diesels.

I should also say the only thing using the siding is milk tanker wagons, there would never be a loco "shut in" so to speak. There wouldn't be enough room to do that.

Hi all, I need a little help with signalling an unusual section of track layout please. I've got a terminus platform line that has a siding diverging to a milk dock about a third of the way along its length. This siding can only be accessed when there is no train standing on the platform line, and is probably going to be worked with a ground frame as opposed to the signal box. 

In my mind as the milk siding joins the platform line well before the platform  starter signals, and it isnt a running line, it doesn't need its own exit signal? The ground frame would still need to be unlocked by the signal box anyway, so that should be enough protection I would think?

Whilst looking for ideas on how to hide the fiddleyard entrance on the viaduct layout, I came across the ideal prototype in Brixton junction signal box. There are a few pics online of the outside of the building, but I can't quite figure out how the interior layout would be arranged. Presumably the wooden "balcony" was just a lookout for better sighting, and the lever frame would be at the back of the building? Or was the lookout a later addition and the lever frame was then in the middle of the box? Seems a very unusual design, and the only other example I can find was Loughborough junction. Anyone have some info on it?

13 hours ago, John M Upton said:

 

Unfortunately that link is for subscribers only.

 

On the subject of paint, does anyone have a suggestion for UK available rattle can (e.g. Tamiya or Humbrol) that is a decent match for Conrail blue please?

Not tried it, but I would think citadel paints "ultramarine blue" would be a match. Tamiya ts15 spray might also be close.

13 hours ago, cnw6847 said:

 

Thank you. I think a suggestion is all thats needed really.

 

Be interesting to see what its like when its all installed and sceniced.

Works better than a mirror I think, as you say a suggestion is all that it needs. A mirror would show too much detail and break the illusion, like the fact the two cars are driving away from each other. The mirror card blurs it into shadow so you can only see the shadow of the other car, not which direction it's pointing.

Besides the shimmer effect just looks like a hot day in the city...

Alot of modelers use automotive spray paint, if you want brush on paint Citadel do a great range.