QUOTE If a tender loco brought a passenger train into this station then I would assume that a loco would come from the shed as shown and take the coaches back off to the traverser.
As such should I base my headshunt length on the longer tank locos like the Fowler 2-6-4Ts and if so what is that approximate length?
mention of the 2-6-4T's...and station pilots, rather leads my train{?} of thought towards this station being at the outer end of a busy commuter line?
Which could well support an intensive commuter service?
Which would mean some pretty slick operation, getting trains to arrive and depart with minimal headway?
I am reminded of an Iain Rice [again, bless him]....track plan....found in his book ''Designs for Urban Layouts''...[ISBN 1 902877 08 2].....which I have quoted from in another thread....
This particular gem is based upon C J Freezer's ''Minories'' plan again.......but altered somewhat from the orginal settings...albeit still on a commuter line.
[I could scan and post, but again I am not sure of copyright issues, etc....maybe Doug could again advise??]
With Mr Rice's interpretation, he came away from the double platform idea, instead creating an island platform scheme.....ie one platform, two main faces.
Both platforms have access in entry and exit modes.....ie the plan can be created either as a double track, or single track mode.......thus each platform road has access to potentially both running lines [or convert one into a short, ''safety'' headshunt..]
Use is made of nicely complicated P&W work..ie double and single slips, etc...the sort which is commonly found on the prototype, where land space was restricted....
.[are modellers influenced AWAY from complex P&W work , believing it to be used only in special cases...based solely on the purchase price of Peco slips and 3-way turnouts, I wonder??]
Iain Rice's plan also has a coal siding [important in the days right up to the 1960's, when most households still ran coal fires, in urban areas]
plus and engine SERVICING road....ie, loco's arrive, quick stoke 'n poke, then sent back
One platform road also is part of a runround loop......enhancing operation, which was absent from the original Freezer Minories plan....
All the above within around 6 foot 6 inches, by about 1 foot to 18 inches..[board edges not parallel on frontage]
I would also suggest 2-4-2 tanks with two or three suburban coaches.....now..one for those with time to search...there IS/WAS a loco building company,located, I believe, somewhere near Exeter [UK]...who produced limited -run locos, ready-to-run.....charging around the £150 price range...not overly heavily detailed, I believe...yet not out-of-the-way,price-wise, compared to a kit?
For Lancashire Fusilier's plan...may I suggest an option....based on Mr Rice's idea....of moving the main station buildings from the rear of the platform, and placing them on a higher level, ACROSS the end of the platform track.. possibly on a bridge which COULD suggest the station may be a 'through' station rather than a terminus...?
Or....if modelled in 'low relief', the station could still be a terminus.....
what this change would allow, is, the extension of the rear platform road right up to the end of the platform proper...ie the same length as the 'main' plaform road?
With the addition of a facing crossover with single slip in the vicinity of the signal box, the plan could be double tracked?
[either way, I would add a short spur/headshunt/safety trap/whatever, again using a single slip....or not as money allows...see above....twixt the cattle siding point, and the point accessing the main line, near the signal box, creating a very short spur/dead end...or even, double track main line exit.......parallel to the running line , under the road bridge??]