Regularity

Back in the day I studied psychology, and got fed up with people saying, “I could have told you that: it’s obvious, innit?” To which my usual response was, “Yes, but you didn’t. And neither did anyone else until so and so came up with the idea.”

I mention this as I look at that tool, and think, that is so simple, so elegant, and so effective that I wonder why I didn’t think of such a tool?

Brilliant!

That’s rather nice. Unfortunately, it had me looking back through the thread to find out more, only to discover the loss of images. :(

14 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

A reviewer of a book on the history of English grammar in a recent number of the TLS noted that in the 18th and 19th centuries grammar textbooks for teaching boys promoted rules based on Latin while (in the sense of "at the same time") those for teaching girls used rules based on French. The use of "he / his" to denote both genders, that has been so troublesome in recent times, was stated to originate with a lady author of such a textbook for girls in the 1740s. Before then the usual English usage was "them / theirs", which is now re-establishing itself.

I would be ecstatically happy to know about that reference!

8 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I'm wondering though if we should take this back to the Special, General and Unified Theory of Minories in relationship with Terminus Field Theory thread and, now that it's abuilding, leave this one for William's layout. 

I mess thinking much the same. He said, further cluttering the thread contrary to his point!

11 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

I'm not sure though about having both a pilot spur* and a turnover engine spur, especially as the turnover spur only gives direct access to platform 1

The thought was that this platform 1 was mostly/only used during the peak flows.

The “pilot spur” was a GER influenced thing: it makes the station look more busy.

Personally, though, I wouldn’t use the Peco slip points as they are far too sharp.

31 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

but the track plan is not really up for discussion at this stage

Your track plan may not be, but we are railway modellers and talking about track plans is one of the things we enjoy most! ;)

11 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

We're writing English not Latin and "to boldly go" works far better than "to go boldly".

The other issue is that in English it is possible to split an infinitive, but not in many others.

11 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

It was light hearted. I was amused that Regularity pulled  William up on alternate and then used different to which the grammar purists generally object to.

Fair enough.

”Different to” reflects my regional and class background*, but alternate has a specific meaning, which is not the same meaning as alternative, otherwise we don’t need the latter word.
 

* There are a surprising number of such variations within England, which operate independently of accent. The “worst” culprit is “while”, which is used hereabouts (L&YR territory**) to mean “until”, rather than “during” or “if” which caused a number of fatal accidents on open level crossings as the signs used to say “Do not cross the lines while the light is out.”
** Not where I am from, but where I live.

There is also the difference between what was supposed to happen - drawing to a complete stop - and what actually happened, where the signalman would observe that the driver had the train under control (moving very slowly) and would drop the board so that the driver didn’t have to stop, to avoid (or reduce) the risk of a coupling snatch.

Oh yes, and I was really bored at work and distracted myself to produce this, which is very different to Minories!

39 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

The problem with widening the track plan much more (i.e. with the angled dock) is that while I have a few inches to play with in the background, I can't really shift everything back, because iit then limits the traverser travel, which is already offset to the rear by 50mm. 

Nothing says that the track has to be square to the board ends, and you could rotate the layout slightly to create more space at the rear.

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

As in the St Pancras example. But would that be essential at a smaller, less busy terminus? Would bringing the incoming train to a stand at the home be sufficient, perhaps with a verbal caution? 

42 minutes ago, Martin S-C said:

I totally knew someone was going to suggest this. The answer I regret to inform you is an unequivocal "no". 😉

All trains coming to a stop at the home might be one solution. It would add another little operating wriggle to make things more interesting.

Seems reasonable to me!

(But it would be fun!)

There is also the possibility of a gantry….

I have assumed here that P4 is unidirectional, but P3 bidirectional. G for foods, L for loop. L and P4 are subsidiary arms (shunting only).

Also, what is the purpose of the siding at the west of P3? Is it a safety-siding, in which case the ground discs are not needed, or is it needed at all?

And I have added 4 more catch points…

5 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

I have no idea how to scratchbuild these in plasticard though. Slaters flemish bond plasticard for the main structure and presumably Wills arches for the arches - but I can't find any normal windows to match the window arches? Similarly, I can't find any etched  windows which are even remotely close to the Littlehampton box style of four-pane, 5'4 x 3'2. Oh well!

Build a basic box for the structure in whatever materials you like, and clad it with brickwork. I prefer the SE Finecast bricks myself.

As for the windows, you can get them laser-cut in card, and possibly some form of plastic, to order from a variety of suppliers.

Then there’s the possibility of having a calling-on arm beneath each stop signal.

To be kind, you might not need it for the goods route, so maybe only 9 arms…

Just a thought, William, but the pregrouping railways tended have more pointwork than nowadays, as we have discussed, to allow for moves simultaneous moves. If you added the crossover marked in blue, then trains can depart from platform 2 whilst another arrives in platform 3.

1 hour ago, Martin S-C said:

One of my several inspirations is the M&SWJR.

The one that installed this?

I believe that there would be a lever for each route, pulling one of them would pull the home signal off whilst displaying the appropriate route.

My memory of CJF’s goods shed was a two-road shed with central platform, of some length compared to a branchline goods shed, such as would be used for deliveries to the local shops. For a terminus in a major city, this traffic would arrive in a variety of opens, vans and NPCS, with the wagons at least coming from quite a few companies even before traffic pooling. It would also be worked outside of the rush hours, as during quieter periods, only two or even one or the platforms would be required for passenger trains.

ITV did a series, but this is from the 2000 film using Jenny as the mother.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Railway_Children_(2000_film)

Did that (albeit slightly longer) when I was about 13. Didn’t know enough about how to arrange power to the rails, though, and hand-pushing locos one and off felt a bit toy-like. It does work, though.

23 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The problem is that there is not a suitable RTP turntable of pre-grouping dimensions - only the 65 ft - 70 ft behemoths. There are some fancy kits around for diameters of 50 ft and below but nothing for the quick fix one wants to get things up an running. The Dapol kit - or any over-girder design - don't really fit the pre-grouping look.

Not sure that the pre-grouping scene is ideal territory for anyone wanting a “quick fix”, but this not too expensive kit for 0-16.5 has a deck scaling out to 53’ in 4mm scale, and should be modifiable with new handrails, etc. https://www.kitwoodhillmodels.com/on30-9-pit-turntable/

There may be a detailed track plan in GE Engine sheds, failing that, perusal of photographs.

Do you have the relevant Oakwood Press book?

I am going to attempt to answer some of your questions, but my perspective is that on an interested amateur rather than professional signaller!

You don’t need a ground signal it is duplicates the permission that would be provided by a stop signal, I.e. that the train can proceed up to the next signal on that route. You might see one for a diverging route from that position. If the permission was to enter a section of track which may be occupied, then a calling-on subsidiary arm would be required - and the driver needs to move slowly and be prepared to stop at very short notice. (E.g. a loco coming onto the rear of a set of coaches in a platform.)

Locos leaving p3/4 for the loco depot would have a ground/subsidiary signal, one for each route, as the starting signals will be used for going to the branch/mainline, and not the loco depot. Think of them as being akin to junction signals in this respect, as they apply to a different route. Therefore, locos going on shed are not passing a signal at danger, as the signal at danger does not apply to their route.

I am not sure about the green dot position: branch trains could presumably gain access to/from platforms 1 and 2, and you have different options with what to do about this.

1) require locos to go further, to wherever the signals are for arriving trains, and be signalled from there using the stop signals.

2) ground signal(s) as you indicate, but there is potential for confusion in the arrangement as this is a turnout used on both routes for passenger trains.

3) have a full signal at this place, with arms for each route (or at least each platform, and a ground signal for other routes) with a single arm stop signal on the main outside of all the pointwork, and a two-arm signal on the branch, these to be for arriving trains and giving permission to proceed only as far as the signal at the green dot.

You don’t need a ground signal for every possible move, unless you are modelling the NER. It depends on frequency and safety: for less-common moves, the signalman might wave a green flag (or just give a flick of the wrist if no officials were present!)

An “advance starter” would be helpful, and serve as the limit of shunt unless there was a “shunt ahead” subsidiary signal on it. It also means that you don’t have to have a “full” signal for departure from the goods yard, so that then is up to you. Just because it is on the wrong side of the line, doesn’t mean it has to have a bracket, either. But if you want to, it’s better practice, depending on era/company.

Hope that helps.

7 hours ago, Alister_G said:

My Grandmother had such a device, I remember it very well, clad in ivory coloured enamel and weighed a ton.

That’s a very disrespectful way to refer to your Grandmother…

9 hours ago, Martin S-C said:

I have a photograph of the loco shed and carriage sidings which in reality were on the same side of the line and I cannot see a catch point there either, though this photograph is less clear. It may have been because they didn't directly connect to a running line.

They did connect, but it required pulling some points off, via a crossover in a scissors formation, and the normal route headed towards non-running lines. Effectively, there were already points providing safety, so no catch points required.

Entirely depends on your sources of inspiration, and the (presumed, if you are inventing somewhere completely fictitious) topography of the surrounding area. This will be further driven by other matters such as if you need access to platform ends, how you are going to operate points and signals, and what sort of couplings you are using.

The only person who knows what looks best for you, is you.

William,

Dr. Gerbil Fritters frequently changes his mind about what he wants, but yes, I think the overall scheme is good (and I can thoroughly recommend return loops as a way of getting trains back, especially for the solo operator) but it falls down on the details: not much in the way of goods traffic, and other than a fast train overtaking a train stopped at East Croydon, it is mostly a long run with not much else to do.

Anyway, I don’t know if it would fit - probably not, although a small plug-in section might work - but you could put a turntable where you have marked the cobbled area, and have a carriage siding below the runaround loop: