Compact station throat ideas.

[simon b]

Compact Minories using a slip definitely has a hint of Birmingham moor street about it, especially it's later rationalized layout.

[DCB]

Not sure facing access to all platforms is needed,  unless you are modelling London Underground, Many steam age stations had facing access to only two of four platforms.   Very few lacked loco release crossovers on at least one platform.     Thing is arrivals are usually cleared quickly while departures can often be waiting  at their platform for hours, The 3pm and the 4pm in adjacent platforms locos pointlessly simmering away.
Anyway I digress.  A Scissors helps length,

[t-b-g]

I always measure the length of a station throat in the number of points or diamonds/slips it needs. Most of the ones illustrated above are three or four points in length.

 

My latest compact terminus has a two point length. It is double track, has three platforms plus a loading dock for vans, horse boxes etc. and a loco spur and has the grand total of 5 conventional points, with no slips or diamonds. I have one dedicated arrival platform, one dedicated departure platform and one that can be used for either. The requirement to shunt stock to another platform adds to the operational potential and is quite prototypical and I can have simultaneous arrivals and departures from various combinations of platforms.

 

I attach some snaps showing the arrangements. It us still under construction but is now fully operational and is really interesting to run.

 

[Orion]

Having no run round facility at such a small terminus must be a bit of a handicap. You need an extra loco for every arrival, or maybe gravity shunting? In the real thing I would have expected another crossover somewhere upstream, so maybe you are not modelling the full station? Not a criticism, just curious.

Edited May 23 by Orion

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Orion said:

Having no run round facility at such a small terminus must be a bit of a handicap. You need an extra loco for every arrival, or maybe gravity shunting? In the real thing I would have expected another crossover somewhere upstream, so maybe you are not modelling the full station? Not a criticism, just curious.

 

The layout is operated by always having a spare loco available for shunting moves, or to take a train out. The idea is that there are carriage sidings and a loco shed off scene, so ECS and light engine locos feature in the operation.

 

It is pure model railway deceit, designed to create as much operational interest as possible with a small layout and a small amount of pointwork.

 

Arriving trains can be dealt with in several different ways. If they arrive in Pl 1 (LH side in the overall view) they really have to be shunted to Pl 2 (centre road). The loco that brought the train in can go onto the spur (coaling and watering) or can depart light engine to the off scene shed after shunting across to Pl 2. An arrival in Pl 2 can depart ECS using the spare loco/pilot, or it can be shunted to Pl 3 (next to the station building), or it can depart from Pl 2 after another loco backs on. Again, the loco that brought the train in can go to the spur or the shed. Tail loads and horse boxes can be added or removed. Goods workings are minimal but a goods can arrive in Pl 2 and detach or attach some wagons from the loading dock.

 

I need some more locos to run it properly but my idea is to have enough locos spare that when a train departs to the fiddle yard, a loco which brought a train in will go to "the shed" but will back onto the train in the fiddle yard. So for a while, the train in the fiddle yard will have locos on both ends. When that goes back into the station later, it frees the trapped loco, which can then come "off shed" to back onto a train waiting in the platforms. So no swapping of locos in the fiddle yard will be needed.  

 

I doubt that there ever was a real station like that, with a double track line and platforms that can take 4 bogie carriages (5 at a push) but that doesn't bother me.

 

Once you introduce a run round, apart from reducing the possible train length from 5 to maybe 2 or 3 carriages, you also do away with the need for a spare/pilot loco and each train could just arrive, run round and depart. If you then start introducing lots of interesting operational moves, the viewer can rightly think "Why didn't they just run round like they would have done on the real railway?"

 

I have never found a real place that combines all the things I want, in terms of operational interest, visual appeal, the right prototype company and able to be built in the space I have available. It is why I usually build (and prefer) fictional layouts rather than real places. They require an element of imagination and design that doesn't happen if you are copying a real place, where all that is done for you. 

[simon b]

20 hours ago, DCB said:

Not sure facing access to all platforms is needed,  unless you are modelling London Underground, Many steam age stations had facing access to only two of four platforms.   Very few lacked loco release crossovers on at least one platform.     Thing is arrivals are usually cleared quickly while departures can often be waiting  at their platform for hours, The 3pm and the 4pm in adjacent platforms locos pointlessly simmering away.
Anyway I digress.  A Scissors helps length,

Love the names on those plans! 

 

I've just realized if I flip my plan like Arkwright street so the slip is in the upper platform I gain some extra space. A train in that platform would never need to depart via the diverging point, so the turnover loco could sit on top of the point itself to depart. Gains about a foot of usable platform like that.

[Pacific231G]

On 23/05/2024 at 11:19, t-b-g said:

 

The layout is operated by always having a spare loco available for shunting moves, or to take a train out. The idea is that there are carriage sidings and a loco shed off scene, so ECS and light engine locos feature in the operation.

 

It is pure model railway deceit, designed to create as much operational interest as possible with a small layout and a small amount of pointwork.

 

 

Not a pure deceit Tony. Fort William did away with its releasing crossover in 1955 (apparently  because it was almost never used after the Mallaig extension was built) and relied very heavily on pilot locos.

Admittedly, though it was a main line terminus, it wasn't double track, but that was only because the strip of land made available to the WHR by the town was too narrow. Had it not been, it would surely have been double tracked from Mallaig Junction when the extension was built.

Fort William was a somewhat special case in that, once it became a reversing terminus, arriving trains acquired a new train loco at the throat end before continuing onward , 10-15 minutes later, to Glasgow  or Mallaig so there was no reason for a loco to run round its train nor would it be trapped for too long before the train departed. This was not a typical terminus of course but it only takes one example to make it prototypical!    

[t-b-g]

34 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Not a pure deceit Tony. Fort William did away with its releasing crossover in 1955 (apparently  because it was almost never used after the Mallaig extension was built) and relied very heavily on pilot locos.

Admittedly, though it was a main line terminus, it wasn't double track, but that was only because the strip of land made available to the WHR by the town was too narrow. Had it not been, it would surely have been double tracked from Mallaig Junction when the extension was built.

Fort William was a somewhat special case in that, once it became a reversing terminus, arriving trains acquired a new train loco at the throat end before continuing onward , 10-15 minutes later, to Glasgow  or Mallaig so there was no reason for a loco to run round its train nor would it be trapped for too long before the train departed. This was not a typical terminus of course but it only takes one example to make it prototypical!    

 

The operations at Fort William were part of the reason I was happy to design the layout the way that it is. Even though my layouts are usually fictional, I like to combine elements of real places.

 

The deceit is more about having a double track terminus with platforms that can only handle five coach trains that fill the platforms in such a small space. Even on lines where trains were short, stations and platforms were often much longer.

 

There are real stations that I could have built to scale in that space but they would be nothing more than tiny halts or just the smallest of stations with very little to offer operationally.

 

I have also started (having no self discipline when it comes to working on one thing at a time) an even simpler version as a single track line with two platforms, a loco spur and a goods siding, using just three points, inspired by the layouts built by Ian Futers. That one is 8ft x 1ft plus fiddle yard.

 

The idea is to have a modular exhibition layout. So the two stations can be shown individually, or together, combined with a fiddle yard.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

17 hours ago, simon b said:

Love the names on those plans! 

 

I've just realized if I flip my plan like Arkwright street so the slip is in the upper platform I gain some extra space. A train in that platform would never need to depart via the diverging point, so the turnover loco could sit on top of the point itself to depart. Gains about a foot of usable platform like that.

 

True, but does that leave you with a station that can have longer trains departing than arriving?  There may well be prototypes where this happened, but perpetual asymmetrical operation seems an undesirable feature to me.  Just a thought, Keith.

[Flying Pig]

35 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

True, but does that leave you with a station that can have longer trains departing than arriving?  There may well be prototypes where this happened, but perpetual asymmetrical operation seems an undesirable feature to me.  Just a thought, Keith.

 

No, arriving trains run into platform 1 via the slip and points and just need the last coach to clear the toe of the points.  When using a turnover engine, the departing train is longer by the length of the new loco.

 

Alternatively, shunt release does away with the problem.

[simon b]

2 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

No, arriving trains run into platform 1 via the slip and points and just need the last coach to clear the toe of the points.  When using a turnover engine, the departing train is longer by the length of the new loco.

 

 

That's exactly what I'm thinking, I'll flip the plan so the slip is in platform 1 departure side. Another advantage is that it moves the only reverse curve to the rear of the layout. 

[Flying Pig]

24 minutes ago, simon b said:

 

That's exactly what I'm thinking, I'll flip the plan so the slip is in platform 1 departure side. Another advantage is that it moves the only reverse curve to the rear of the layout. 

 

My only query about this arrangement is how it would be signalled.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

No, arriving trains run into platform 1 via the slip and points and just need the last coach to clear the toe of the points.  When using a turnover engine, the departing train is longer by the length of the new loco.

 

Alternatively, shunt release does away with the problem.

 

2 hours ago, simon b said:

 

That's exactly what I'm thinking, I'll flip the plan so the slip is in platform 1 departure side. Another advantage is that it moves the only reverse curve to the rear of the layout. 

 

Sorry, I may have got my platform numbering the wrong way round - I’ve been looking at this:

 

 

(Arriving locos with solid blue roofs, train carriage(s) with grey roofs, and turnover loco in translucent blue).

 

Looks like I’m not seeing something I should, sorry, Keith.

[Flying Pig]

15 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

 

Sorry, I may have got my platform numbering the wrong way round - I’ve been looking at this:

 

 

(Arriving locos with solid blue roofs, train carriage(s) with grey roofs, and turnover loco in translucent blue).

 

Looks like I’m not seeing something I should, sorry, Keith.

 

Sorry, we were indeed looking at different platforms.  I think both @simon b and I meant the one at the top in the Arkwright St sketch.

[DCB]

On 23/05/2024 at 06:42, t-b-g said:

I always measure the length of a station throat in the number of points or diamonds/slips it needs. Most of the ones illustrated above are three or four points in length.

 

My latest compact terminus has a two point length. It is double track, has three platforms plus a loading dock for vans, horse boxes etc. and a loco spur and has the grand total of 5 conventional points, with no slips or diamonds. I have one dedicated arrival platform, one dedicated departure platform and one that can be used for either. The requirement to shunt stock to another platform adds to the operational potential and is quite prototypical and I can have simultaneous arrivals and departures from various combinations of platforms.

 

I attach some snaps showing the arrangements. It us still under construction but is now fully operational and is really interesting to run.

 

The track flows really nicely but  the need to take all arrivals through the middle platform for departure would be something I would not employ.  Having one arrrival platform at which everything had to arrive would be my preference.

 

10 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

The operations at Fort William were part of the reason I was happy to design the layout the way that it is. Even though my layouts are usually fictional, I like to combine elements of real places.

 

The Fort wassingle track had an extensive yard and loco shed just up the line from which pilot locos could be supplied and  beyond it  a junction where Mallaig Trains turned left and Glasgow trains went straight on. There were very few trains 4 up 4 down and  many trains arrived and then departed again strengthened or reduced with fresh locos  as an intermediate stop on Glasgow - Mallaig services. These days 4 cars from Mallaig then 2 to Crianlarich then 4 to Glasgow.    These days in summer 40% of trains to Mallaig are steam

Edited May 24 by DCB

[t-b-g]

42 minutes ago, DCB said:

 

The track flows really nicely but  the need to take all arrivals through the middle platform for departure would be something I would not employ.  Having one arrrival platform at which everything had to arrive would be my preference.

 

The Fort wassingle track had an extensive yard and loco shed just up the line from which pilot locos could be supplied and  beyond it  a junction where Mallaig Trains turned left and Glasgow trains went straight on. There were very few trains 4 up 4 down and  many trains arrived and then departed again strengthened or reduced with fresh locos  as an intermediate stop on Glasgow - Mallaig services. These days 4 cars from Mallaig then 2 to Crianlarich then 4 to Glasgow.    These days in summer 40% of trains to Mallaig are steam

 

As I have tried to say, the whole reason for the arrangements on the model is to see how much operational interest I can get out of a small station with 5 points. You could easily have an imaginary trailing crossover just off scene, which would then allow departures from all three platforms.

 

I enjoy designing layouts and I tinkered with this one for several months, sketching out many dozens of slightly different arrangements, all using the maximum approach length of two points. I would then work through all the possible moves that could be made.

 

This version came out with the most alternatives and having operated it as a functioning but lacking scenery work in progress at its first show, it is really good fun to play trains on.

 

That is not to say that it would suit everybody and if you wanted a model with just one arrival platform then go for it. I would be interested in seeing what you come up with.

Edited May 24 by t-b-g
typo

[DCB]

t-b-j       I see you can have simultaneous arrivals at P3 and departures from p2 which must look really good.   To keep this with out needing to use p2 for  all shunts rom down to up you could have an extra crossover on scene.

If  you moved the crossover out away from the buffers  then the nice simultaneous move would be lost. 

I can't remember enough about my station throat but its 4 platform and simplified is in the last pic basically the headshunt has a facing crossover and during the peak summer can be used for passengers allowing arrivals at the bottom most platform and departures from any other platform simultaneously.  It does not really help operationally but a simultaneous departure from 2 and arrival at 3 looks great, often the departure is a ECS shunt to the departure side of the station.    I only have a run round on one road as I assume I have a passenger pilot available and its  only locals needing the tank loco to run round and depart again fairly soon which need it

 I admit my  attitude to points is biased by a pile of once broken  now fully operational Peco ones purchased from Cheltenham Model Centre for about £2 each. . 

 

 

Edited May 25 by DCB

[t-b-g]

5 hours ago, DCB said:

t-b-j       I see you can have simultaneous arrivals at P3 and departures from p2 which must look really good.   To keep this with out needing to use p2 for  all shunts rom down to up you could have an extra crossover on scene.

If  you moved the crossover out away from the buffers  then the nice simultaneous move would be lost. 

I can't remember enough about my station throat but its 4 platform and simplified is in the last pic basically the headshunt has a facing crossover and during the peak summer can be used for passengers allowing arrivals at the bottom most platform and departures from any other platform simultaneously.  It does not really help operationally but a simultaneous departure from 2 and arrival at 3 looks great, often the departure is a ECS shunt to the departure side of the station.    I only have a run round on one road as I assume I have a passenger pilot available and its  only locals needing the tank loco to run round and depart again fairly soon which need it

 I admit my  attitude to points is biased by a pile of once broken  now fully operational Peco ones purchased from Cheltenham Model Centre for about £2 each. . 

 

 

 

You are doing exactly what I spend ages doing. Tinkering with the plan to see if it can be improved. However all your alterations result in a much longer station throat and my main criteria was to keep it at two points. I have two boards, each 4ft long. I wanted to use one for the platforms and one for the throat. I was faced with the choice of fitting up to four points in length on the throat board, or to put the whole thing on a slight curve and use nice large radius but longer points. I can also do many shunting moves all on scene, without needing to go into the fiddle yard.

 

As you can tell, I make my own points and track, as I am working in an unusual gauge (18mm) and I enjoy building things. So the flow of the track and the way trains snake nicely through the points without the excess movement you get with smaller radius and shorter points was all part of the design.

 

I did build another layout with two crossovers on the approach. It worked but the throat was twice as long and it was no more fun to operate.

 

In my version, I can arrive in Pl3 and depart from 2 or 1 simultaneously, or I can arrive in 2 and depart from 1. Or I can arrive in 3 and be shunting stock from 2 to 1, or be shunting in the loading dock from 1 and arrive in 2. So I have enough simultaneous moves possible to not need any more options.

 

I have also wired the platforms so that when a train departs, the trapped loco can follow the departure up the platform. So in this tiny station, it is possible to have three locos moving at the same time.

 

An arrival in 3 at the same time as a departure from 2 looks particularly good as it looks for all the world as if they are heading towards each other on the same track and if you get the timing right, they both turn left at the same time. Combined with the trapped loco, we have three things moving on what looks like the same track. It looks very impressive to the viewer.

[St Enodoc]

21 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I have also wired the platforms so that when a train departs, the trapped loco can follow the departure up the platform.

Now, where have I seen that before?????

[t-b-g]

6 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Now, where have I seen that before?????

 

I was actually doing this sort of thing long before my involvement with Buckingham. I read about it in the superb series of articles by Frank Dyer in early MRJs. When it comes to operating layouts, his articles are my "bible". So we had this arrangement on Narrow Road some 20 years ago.

 

I didn't even know it happened on Buckingham until the layout came to me. If it was ever written up in a book or article, I had missed it.

 

Having said that, the new layout copies the Buckingham wiring. Our version on Narrow Road was much more complicated, which Buckingham taught me was unnecessary.

Edited May 25 by t-b-g

[Pacific231G]

11 hours ago, DCB said:

 

The track flows really nicely but  the need to take all arrivals through the middle platform for departure would be something I would not employ.  Having one arrrival platform at which everything had to arrive would be my preference.

 

The Fort wassingle track had an extensive yard and loco shed just up the line from which pilot locos could be supplied and  beyond it  a junction where Mallaig Trains turned left and Glasgow trains went straight on. There were very few trains 4 up 4 down and  many trains arrived and then departed again strengthened or reduced with fresh locos  as an intermediate stop on Glasgow - Mallaig services. These days 4 cars from Mallaig then 2 to Crianlarich then 4 to Glasgow.    These days in summer 40% of trains to Mallaig are steam

Indeed. That's a large part of Fort William's attraction as the basis for a model. Everything except the station itself can be off-stage which is something you normally tend only to find in city termini which would be larger than three platforms. In fact the main line between the station throat and the south yard seemed to be used as a headshunt for the latter.

It was characterised by periods of intense activity between long periods of inactivity but, for our purposes, we'd focus on the busy periods and skip over the quiet ones. 

This is the 1950 winter timetable and you can see that there were two busy periods each day.What it doesn't show is the relief trains that were added in the summer and which made the operation incredibly intense.

In the early-mid 1960s Fort William itself wasn't the most interesting place for a teenager (once the clamber up Ben Nevis was done) so I spent quite a lot of time during a family holiday just watching it from the lochside footpath during the busy periods and it was fascinating.- even for a then dyed in the wool steam enthusiast with the WHR totally dieselised. Almost every train from Mallaig was strengthened with sleepers and/or a restaurant car while almost every train from Glasgow was weakened (?) by their removal but some gaining the observation car which had to use the turntable)  I presume the reason why those at both the Fort and Mallaig survived between the end and the return of steam.) 

The busy periods were quite intense - even without the summer reliefs that I didn't see- but between them were hours when nothing moved apart from a diesel shunter coming up to the level crossing while playing with oil tank wagons in the south yard. What I didn't see were the tail loads that were added to some passenger trains. 

 

From a modelling point of view I'd probably make the quayside active as more than just a carriage siding  and move it from its position a couple of hundred metres beyond the station to alongside the station and yes definitely make the approach double track.

Either way I think what made Ft. William unusually attractive was that it was (and is) a reversing terminus which effectively doubles the operation. I think there were a couple more like that in Scotland though none AFAIK with the combination of a very simple trackplan (with just two turnouts it could hardly be simpler) and main line operation. 

Another point is that main line trains on the WHR were often just four or five coaches in length and for me five coaches seems to be a credible length for a main line train in 3.5 or 4mm scale (Buckingham GC being an excellent example of that in EM) . I definitely take  Tony's point about the unrealistically short platforms but Cyril Freezer's Minories trick of using an overbridge to break up the view does hide that quite effectively which you can see if you look up the late Geoff Ashdown's Tower Pier on RM Web (I've posted a good number of my own photos of it at various times mainly in the Minories threads)

 

Like Minories, I think a terminus based on Ft. William it would be fairly boring to operate just with modern sets (that's based on my own experience of operating an EMU based Minories) .

Edited May 25 by Pacific231G

[DCB]

 

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I have also wired the platforms so that when a train departs, the trapped loco can follow the departure up the platform. So in this tiny station, it is possible to have three locos moving at the same time.

That is very interesting,is it described anywhere?

 

15 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Another point is that main line trains on the WHR were often just five coaches in length and for me that seems to be a credible length for a main line train in 3.5 or 4mm scale (Buckingham GC being an excellent example of that in EM) .

The Great Central was also infamous for its short express trains on the London extension.  Five coaches would be about it for an express so Buckingham GC trains were scale length ,  I seem to remember a lot of timing logs pre WW1 where loads were 4 or 5 bogies. (and final days with 4)   The original MS&L was a different story.    Use of 50ft instead of 64ft (Mk1) stock also helps the illusion.    A lot of people don't realise this but 1905 -1923 the GC with its brown  white  coaches looked a lot more like what modellers think of as Great Western than the GW did. The GW was allover brown or Red coaches 1905 ish till 1923.  Just like 1950s BR so a horrible period to model the GW accurately....   For some reason  model 5 and 7 coach sets  look more satisfying than even numbers, I think its the symmetry of having the restaurant car in the middle   I 

 

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

You are doing exactly what I spend ages doing. Tinkering with the plan to see if it can be improved. However all your alterations result in a much longer station throat and my main criteria was to keep it at two points. I have two boards, each 4ft long. I wanted to use one for the platforms and one for the throat. I was faced with the choice of fitting up to four points in length on the throat board, or to put the whole thing on a slight curve and use nice large radius but longer points. I can also do many shunting moves all on scene, without needing to go into the fiddle yard.

It's a lot easier to click delete and move a crossover on AnyRail than move it when its laid, ballasted and wired up. I have a crossover an annoying foot too far down grade which has been waiting to be moved for 35 ish years, 

 

The original post with the rest of the layout in shot looked like this this was a terminus for the layout not a stand alone terminus FY set up. That  makes a big difference as you want to keep all on scene movements on scene and not in the FY. On the full size railway there is usually a lot of main line available to use for shunting even without consulting the next signal box,  but a lot of  modellers use the convention is only departures enter the FY ,shunts stay out   ,

[t-b-g]

6 hours ago, DCB said:

 

That is very interesting,is it described anywhere?

 

The Great Central was also infamous for its short express trains on the London extension.  Five coaches would be about it for an express so Buckingham GC trains were scale length ,  I seem to remember a lot of timing logs pre WW1 where loads were 4 or 5 bogies. (and final days with 4)   The original MS&L was a different story.    Use of 50ft instead of 64ft (Mk1) stock also helps the illusion.    A lot of people don't realise this but 1905 -1923 the GC with its brown  white  coaches looked a lot more like what modellers think of as Great Western than the GW did. The GW was allover brown or Red coaches 1905 ish till 1923.  Just like 1950s BR so a horrible period to model the GW accurately....   For some reason  model 5 and 7 coach sets  look more satisfying than even numbers, I think its the symmetry of having the restaurant car in the middle   I 

 

It's a lot easier to click delete and move a crossover on AnyRail than move it when its laid, ballasted and wired up. I have a crossover an annoying foot too far down grade which has been waiting to be moved for 35 ish years, 

 

The original post with the rest of the layout in shot looked like this this was a terminus for the layout not a stand alone terminus FY set up. That  makes a big difference as you want to keep all on scene movements on scene and not in the FY. On the full size railway there is usually a lot of main line available to use for shunting even without consulting the next signal box,  but a lot of  modellers use the convention is only departures enter the FY ,shunts stay out   ,

 

The layout in the background of my original photo is Buckingham, built by the late Peter Denny. My layout was resting on top of its fiddle yard for photographic purposes. It is the only place in the shed where I can set 8ft up and get into position to take a picture. Some shunting moves, such as moving a set of carriages from one platform to another, will need to use the fiddle yard. At least the last carriage or two will stay on scene to indicate that it isn't a departure. Either a light engine move, or adding or removing a van or other tail load, can happen on scene.

 

You are spot in about the length of MSLR/GCR trains. The main express on Buckingham is a 4-6-0 on 5 bogie carriages and it looks just right. You are not quite right about the liveries though. The GCR was only brown and cream for a few years and went to teak from 1907/8 onwards.

 

The wiring is simple. The platforms are divided into two parts electrically. The switching is done via the signals. I did a video on the wiring at Buckingham, including a description of the way the signals do the switching, which appears on YouTube. The link is below. There is a manual override with a push button. You press it as soon as the train loco has passed the end of the platform and it puts both parts of the platform onto a second controller. On my layout, I have used modern double pole switches rather than wooden sliders and my wiring is a bit less like a spider web.

 

People say it is easier with DCC but all you need to do is return the starting signal to on, push the button and turn the knob on the controller and it doesn't get much easier than that!

 

 

Edited May 25 by t-b-g
to add link to video

[Harlequin]

The recent discussions here got me thinking and here's a simple plan just for interest. (Too simple?)

 

It sits on two 4ft long baseboards with all the pointwork on one and adheres to the two-points-length throat restriction. As above it relies on turnover operation and we imagine some carriage sidings and a shed further up the line, off-scene, and maybe a facing divergence like Fort William. Thus, the two tracks entering the scene might not be strictly directional "double-track" but assuming they are then operations become more intricate:

 

The single arrival platform, P3, means that stock can't stand there for long without blocking the entire station. The two departure platforms, P1 & P2, give a bit of flexibility to keep P3 clear by shunting stock across to one or the other. And you can of course, draw a train directly out of P3 off scene to the imagined carriage sidings as another option.

 

Simultaneous movements are possible in various combinations even on this simple plan. Locos could be moving in parallel with trains.

 

I haven't shown any spurs for special traffic but they could be added for extra interest.

 

Edited May 26 by Harlequin

[t-b-g]

50 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

The recent discussions here got me thinking and here's a simple plan just for interest. (Too simple?)

 

It sits on two 4ft long baseboards with all the pointwork on one and adheres to the two-points-length throat restriction. As above it relies on turnover operation and we imagine some carriage sidings and a shed further up the line, off-scene, and maybe a facing divergence like Fort William. Thus, the two tracks entering the scene might not be strictly directional "double-track" but assuming they are then operations become more intricate:

 

The single arrival platform, P3, means that stock can't stand there for long without blocking the entire station. The two departure platforms, P1 & P2, give a bit of flexibility to keep P3 clear by shunting stock across to one or the other. And you can of course, draw a train directly out of P3 off scene to the imagined carriage sidings as another option.

 

Simultaneous movements are possible in various combinations even on this simple plan. If both entry lines are bi-directional for locos then locos could be moving in parallel with trains.

 

I haven't shown any spurs for special traffic but they could be added for extra interest.

 

 

That is almost exactly my second layout. The only differences are that your arrival line is cut short and forms a loco spur on mine, leaving it as a single track and your Pl1 is a goods siding on mine, leaving two platforms. Having seen many of Ian Futer's 3 point specials, I would say that it wouldn't sustain interest over a long period as a home layout but I would happy building it as a "quicky" and running it at a show for a weekend.