Compact station throat ideas.

[31A]

13 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

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

 

Seems familiar....

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 25/05/2024 at 21:19, 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. 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.

 

Hi Phil, I’ve been trying to think of a prototype-ish setting where this arrangement might work.  This is what I’ve come up with:

 

I’m tending towards a post-rationalisation DMU / EMU setting (which doesn’t involve turnover operation), where I could see a plan like this representing the suburban end of a commuter line with infrequent services (half-hourly or less).

 

I would renumber the platforms from the bottom, so most services simply arrive then depart from what becomes platform 1.  Platform 2 is the main relief platform, from where additional peak time morning services can depart, while Platform 3 is little used / disused and is a stabling siding for a spare unit to cover failures.

 

Operationally, I wonder if the dependency on a single arrival track is a potential problem, for example if a unit fails while there, or if a late arrival holds up the next incoming Service?  Installing a second crossover further up the line (off-stage?) for ‘wrong line’ arrivals would solve this, but wouldn’t be needed for regular operation.

 

Just a thought.

 

Incidentally, modern day Cromer (island platform and a pair of crossovers) has been modelled in OO and O scales - the added interest coming from the station being the meeting point of two branch lines, not a double track (I think).  A real life example of a compact station?  Keith.
 

[simon b]

On 24/05/2024 at 17:19, Flying Pig said:

 

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

 

Now that I've got track on the board this question has popped up again. I'm thinking that as the diverging line is not a departure route it doesn't require a signal itself, but possibly a repeater signal for the platform starter might be used at the toe of the point? In theory there would be no reason to pass the point if the platform starter isn't cleared, so I don't think a separate signal would be required. I'm happy to learn though!

 

[t-b-g]

I mentioned earlier that a second layout, using a single track approach and three points, has also been started. I am attaching a couple of snaps. One shows the general arrangement of the throat. The two lines with the trap points are the goods siding and the loco spur. The total size is 8ft x 1ft for the scenic section. Again, a 4ft throat and a 4ft platform/station. One day, if I don't get distracted, the two terminus stations could be linked together for an exhibition, with a junction board between them. So I could have the larger terminus at one end and the smaller one at the other along with a fiddle yard. So trains can go from the larger station to either the fiddle yard or the smaller terminus. That should lead to some interesting operation. There could be a "local" service between the two terminus stations, plus through services, vehicles attached/detached etc. along with goods trains reversing at the larger station (which has almost no goods facilities) to reach the smaller one (which has a one road goods yard).

 

I have always fancied exhibiting a layout with two stations, with "proper" working of a service between them.

 

I will have to attach the photos via an edit as I have just realised that I am on the computer and the photos are on my tablet!

Edited June 16 by t-b-g
Add photos

[KeithMacdonald]

Much as I admire @DCB's diagram ..

.. I'm wondering how much of this is a rehash of various Minories permutations? They have been well-thrashed over on the long-running Minories topic.  The most common complaint is about too many points close together, the unseemly snaking of coaches and the risk of buffer lock.

 

@Harlequin 's design would appear to avoid the snaking and buffer-lock. Even if arrivals into P1 and P2 are not possible.

 

 

[DCB]

6 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

Much as I admire @DCB's diagram ..

.. I'm wondering how much of this is a rehash of various Minories permutations? They have been well-thrashed over on the long-running Minories topic.  The most common complaint is about too many points close together, the unseemly snaking of coaches and the risk of buffer lock.

 

@Harlequin 's design would appear to avoid the snaking and buffer-lock. Even if arrivals into P1 and P2 are not possible.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

Much as I admire @DCB's diagram ..

.. I'm wondering how much of this is a rehash of various Minories permutations? They have been well-thrashed over on the long-running Minories topic.  The most common complaint is about too many points close together, the unseemly snaking of coaches and the risk of buffer lock.

 

@Harlequin 's design would appear to avoid the snaking and buffer-lock. Even if arrivals into P1 and P2 are not possible.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

Much as I admire @DCB's diagram ..

.. I'm wondering how much of this is a rehash of various Minories permutations? They have been well-thrashed over on the long-running Minories topic.  The most common complaint is about too many points close together, the unseemly snaking of coaches and the risk of buffer lock.

 

Every plan I have ever done has been inspired by C J Freezer.   Minories is a bt of an odd ball and CJF usually provided a run round.     He did an article in RM once with all the lengths  and angles of 00 Peco streamline platform clerances etc which I used as my bible... However my plan was based on my "Newport Dorset" terminus see pic where I proposed moving a crossover but it ended up over a basebard joint.  

[KeithMacdonald]

An option for a corner layout perhaps?

Platform 1, for arrivals, at the top.

 

[DavidB-AU]

By reversing the crossover at the throat you can eliminate both (comparatively expensive) slips, and by moving the loco spur you can get equal length platforms. But then we're more or less back to the original Minories!

 

[simon b]

10 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

An option for a corner layout perhaps?

Platform 1, for arrivals, at the top.

 

 

If you bin the outer crossover it's very close to Seironim, I prefer it to Minories.

[DCB]

The corner approach throws in another curved ball.   With 3 platforms  and an approach around a left hand curve  its easy enough to get access to the outer two platforms , arrival platforms  but the crossover to allow direct access to the inner platform  becomes an issue  as it has to be on the curve and set track curved points are notorious for derailments and the streamline ones are 5ft radius on the outside,  the 2ft 6" radius on the inside isn't  too  serious  but  most of us  with space issues would ideally keep to 2ft  in OO.  The closer to the platforms that crossover the wider it throws the outside track.  I'm pretty sure I would not bother with the outer crossover and  have the inner platform departure only.   The other issue with my plans  done on Anyrail is Peco don't do a 3ft radius Y point so either it has a 2ft radius Double slip or a small Y point again 2ft radius which needs three stupidly short bits of rail to fit next to a  long crossibg.

[DavidB-AU]

I do like the idea of having a crossover some distance from the station, giving a loop that could be used to back out and run around. I'm wondering if there is a configuration of the station throat that would allow the more distant crossover to be trailing rather than facing.

[RobinofLoxley]

If you want a curved approach but space might be a problem set the platforms at an angle and curve them. Then you can use Streamline curved turnouts and get round the angle.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

7 hours ago, DCB said:

The corner approach throws in another curved ball.   With 3 platforms  and an approach around a left hand curve  its easy enough to get access to the outer two platforms , arrival platforms  but the crossover to allow direct access to the inner platform  becomes an issue  as it has to be on the curve and set track curved points are notorious for derailments and the streamline ones are 5ft radius on the outside,  the 2ft 6" radius on the inside isn't  too  serious  but  most of us  with space issues would ideally keep to 2ft  in OO.  The closer to the platforms that crossover the wider it throws the outside track.  I'm pretty sure I would not bother with the outer crossover and  have the inner platform departure only.   The other issue with my plans  done on Anyrail is Peco don't do a 3ft radius Y point so either it has a 2ft radius Double slip or a small Y point again 2ft radius which needs three stupidly short bits of rail to fit next to a  long crossibg.

Delightful sequence of station names - worth a ‘like’ in their own right for the entertainment value in my view, Keith.

[Chimer]

On 18/06/2024 at 01:44, DCB said:

The other issue with my plans  done on Anyrail is Peco don't do a 3ft radius Y point 

 

 

Not in Streamline, but their Set-track Y is nominally 33" radius, so if you can live with insulfrog and Code 100 rail that might be an option.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Paris Gare de Bastille, completely as per prototype using Roco W10 turnouts and one EKW10 single slip.

 

 

I've also laid this out using Peco code 83 #6s although I had to use a # double slip as there is no single slip in that range.  No doubt it could be done using any of the streamline range, with the caveat that Peco 100 and 75  slips are very tight on the curve, unlike the 83 range and the Roco which match the turnout radius.

 

Here's the station in it's entirety.

 

[t-b-g]

6 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

Paris Gare de Bastille, completely as per prototype using Roco W10 turnouts and one EKW10 single slip.

 

 

I've also laid this out using Peco code 83 #6s although I had to use a # double slip as there is no single slip in that range.  No doubt it could be done using any of the streamline range, with the caveat that Peco 100 and 75  slips are very tight on the curve, unlike the 83 range and the Roco which match the turnout radius.

 

Here's the station in it's entirety.

 

 

I have yet to find a prototype station that can be built accurately using ready to lay points. Using RTR points, you just don't get the variation in lengths and angles that real stations usually have.

 

That looks to be an interesting plan but it does illustrate quite well how even a "compact" real station takes up a lot of room in modelling terms. The throat would need to be 8 or 9ft long to get all those crossovers in, even with relatively short points.

 

It is one of the reasons I tend to model fictional locations, where I can really compress lengths without people saying "It wasn't like that in real life".

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

4 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I have yet to find a prototype station that can be built accurately using ready to lay points. Using RTR points, you just don't get the variation in lengths and angles that real stations usually have.

 

Perhaps, almost certainly the case in the UK.  But GdB was entirely laid out with standard turnouts, and I am fairly sure they were W10s...  Somewhere I have the official SNCF plans.  

 

Reverse it, and its not too dissimilar to the wonderful South for Moonshine...

 

 

and that definitely works in a restricted space using Peco.  

 

[t-b-g]

44 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

Perhaps, almost certainly the case in the UK.  But GdB was entirely laid out with standard turnouts, and I am fairly sure they were W10s...  Somewhere I have the official SNCF plans.  

 

Reverse it, and its not too dissimilar to the wonderful South for Moonshine...

 

 

and that definitely works in a restricted space using Peco.  

 

 

 

South for Moonshine was a wonderful layout to my eyes and a great example of layout design in a confined space. It is the sort of layout I would enjoy operating very much indeed but it is strictly fictional.

 

If there is a real terminus that could give that much operating potential in that space, I would love to know where it is, as I have never seen one.

 

Comparing it to Gare de Bastille isn't really a good call in my view. The French station has a much longer throat in terms of the number of points and crossovers. South for Moonshine just has two crossovers between the running lines. GdB looks to have five, plus the loco release crossovers. That makes the throat much longer.

 

I know little of French practice and if you say that GdB was laid with standard turnouts I bow to your greater knowledge. To me, the succession of straights and curves on the approach as you have drawn it, to use standard points, looks a little unlikely. I would have expected a smoother curve with the points made to fit it.