Trivia: Track layouts which seem to make little sense

[Yindee8191]

The bay platforms at the east end of Lincoln Central only have access onto the Down leading away from the station, and only the line towards Grimsby has a crossover in the right direction, which means that trains can’t terminate in those platforms from Sleaford, at least not without running wrong-line for several miles. While obviously the bays aren’t used for services on these lines, it seems unnecessarily operationally limiting to have no ability for trains to get into those bays from one of the two lines at that end of the station.

 

[Tomnick]

The bay platforms at the east end of Lincoln Central only have access onto the Down leading away from the station, and only the line towards Grimsby has a crossover in the right direction, which means that trains can’t terminate in those platforms from Sleaford, at least not without running wrong-line for several miles. While obviously the bays aren’t used for services on these lines, it seems unnecessarily operationally limiting to have no ability for trains to get into those bays from one of the two lines at that end of the station.

The current layout at Lincoln has both a facing and trailing crossover on both routes approaching from the east, so full flexibility for both arrivals and departures. The previous layout had no access to the bays (or platform 5, now 3) for arrivals from either direction, which wasn’t uncommon in an era where facing points were avoided as far as possible, and indeed passenger trains couldn’t start back from 6 and 7 (now 4 and 5) towards the east either.

 

[Yindee8191]

The current layout at Lincoln has both a facing and trailing crossover on both routes approaching from the east, so full flexibility for both arrivals and departures. The previous layout had no access to the bays (or platform 5, now 3) for arrivals from either direction, which wasn’t uncommon in an era where facing points were avoided as far as possible, and indeed passenger trains couldn’t start back from 6 and 7 (now 4 and 5) towards the east either.

Oh, my mistake. How recently was that done? My (admittedly fairly casual) Google Earth scrolling definitely didn’t show a crossover in both directions on the line towards Sleaford.

 

[Tomnick]

Oh, my mistake. How recently was that done? My (admittedly fairly casual) Google Earth scrolling definitely didn’t show a crossover in both directions on the line towards Sleaford.

2007/2008-ish. The facing crossover is right out beyond Sincil Bank!

 

[adamedwards]

Cambridge North would have surely been more logical if the turn back had been between the running lines, reducing conflict and maximizing capacity? Given all trains stop line speed is not an issue.

 

[Ianno87]

Cambridge North would have surely been more logical if the turn back had been between the running lines, reducing conflict and maximizing capacity? Given all trains stop line speed is not an issue.

Cross Country don't stop.

Seems to cope fine with the level of service regardless, with 2tph turning back; a centre turnback would arguably have been unnecessary 'gold plating'.

 

[Trainfan344]

Probably find that a centre turnback siding could have reduced the line speed.

 

[Merle Haggard]

On the subject of a sub-group; trap points which don't seem to make sense.
This photo (taken on the occasion of a rail tour) shows the traps at St Albans GNR. The were intended, presumably, to protect the through (platform) line from fouling movements from the loop (middle track) and sidings (right hand track).
I think it's fair to describe it as eccentric!
I can't help thinking that if a wagon or loco coming from the loop ran through the trap it would be deflected by the running rails from the siding to continue and still foul the through line

 

[Western 52]

On the subject of a sub-group; trap points which don't seem to make sense.
This photo (taken on the occasion of a rail tour) shows the traps at St Albans GNR. The were intended, presumably, to protect the through (platform) line from fouling movements from the loop (middle track) and sidings (right hand track).
I think it's fair to describe it as eccentric!
I can't help thinking that if a wagon or loco coming from the loop ran through the trap it would be deflected by the running rails from the siding to continue and still foul the through line


View attachment 90398

Yes that's quite a crazy layout! Imagine designing that and the engineering needed to make it. Probably 3 levers to operate it too?

 

[30907]

On the subject of a sub-group; trap points which don't seem to make sense.
This photo (taken on the occasion of a rail tour) shows the traps at St Albans GNR. The were intended, presumably, to protect the through (platform) line from fouling movements from the loop (middle track) and sidings (right hand track).
I think it's fair to describe it as eccentric!
I can't help thinking that if a wagon or loco coming from the loop ran through the trap it would be deflected by the running rails from the siding to continue and still foul the through line


View attachment 90398

It is - was - not uncommon to have traps like that, at minimum permitted distance to the running line. I suspect anything would just derail on the spot.

Yes that's quite a crazy layout! Imagine designing that and the engineering needed to make it. Probably 3 levers to operate it too?

2 levers, assuming there is no facing point lock on the running line. Same as separate points.

 

[Dr_Paul]

On the subject of a sub-group; trap points which don't seem to make sense.
This photo (taken on the occasion of a rail tour) shows the traps at St Albans GNR. The were intended, presumably, to protect the through (platform) line from fouling movements from the loop (middle track) and sidings (right hand track).
I think it's fair to describe it as eccentric!
I can't help thinking that if a wagon or loco coming from the loop ran through the trap it would be deflected by the running rails from the siding to continue and still foul the through line


View attachment 90398

At first glance, I thought this was a double slip that had been truncated. I'm surprised that the trap points weren't put a few yards back from the points on both the through line and the siding, as this would have made manufacture, maintenance and operation rather less complicated.

Have a look at the peculiar arrangement over on what's now platform 17 at Clapham Junction. The broad gauge track finishes at the down end of the platform, but how does one reverse the locomotive with just a couple of feet of broad gauge rail this side of the trailing points? Picture from the Disused Stations site.

 

[Alfie1014]

The lack of a physical connection between c2c and London Overground at Upminster.

According to the excellent history of the LTS by Peter Kay, through running finished in 1958/9 as part of the LTS electrification which included transfer of what were the 'local' lines between Upminster and Bromley-by-Bow from BR to LTE control. That said an overcrossing was installed in 1958 as part of the resignalling and rationalisation at Upminster that connected the two lines with a flat junction across the District lines. Though with the cessation of through running of passenger services from Romford to Grays/Tilbury at around the same time this connection was rarely used and taken out of use in Feb 1968 and physically removed in 1971. Its difficult to imagine an reinstatement these days either commercially or operationally especially with the level of train services on the LTS and District lines both being so high.

Cambridge North would have surely been more logical if the turn back had been between the running lines, reducing conflict and maximizing capacity? Given all trains stop line speed is not an issue.

Providing a centre turnback would have been complicated at the south end by the fact that the points to platform 3 also connect to the remains of Chesterton Yard, the proximity to Fen Road level crossing and the river bridge over the Cam. All of which could have added to the cost, timing and disruption during construction. So pretty much a non starter I'd imagine.

 

[Merle Haggard]

It is - was - not uncommon to have traps like that, at minimum permitted distance to the running line. I suspect anything would just derail on the spot.

In my 1960s days of spending evenings spotting at Northampton Castle there was a down terminator, the loco running round for the return to Bletchley, possibly a Bletchley crew who would book off when they got back. On one occasion, the driver was clearly in a hurry and after detaching from the train, running past the points and coming to and stand, immediately set back - predictably while the signalmen was still moving the points. It split the points and, although it was only moving slowly. it continued for a considerable distance along the sleepers. It was frightening, because there seemed at first to be no reduction in speed at all.
It was from this experience that I suggested that derailment at a trap might not result in stopping instantly!!

 

[Ron Perry]

The arrangement at Buxton seems perverse and restrictive in two ways. Firstly, Platform 1 can be used for departures only. Inbound passenger trains have to use Platform 2. The ECS then reverse out of the platform over the crossover to the signal-box before reversing once more to gain Platform 1. An additional 'opposite handed' crossover closer to the signal-box would negate the need for this manoeuvre. The other deficiency (which was certainly highlighted recently during flooding of the tunnel at Tunstead necessitating diversion of Dowlow /Hindlow traffic to the ex-LNW route towards Whaley Bridge) is the inability for trains from the Dowlow branch to directly access the up main, requiring instead a tedious reversal from the Buxton URS sidings into Buxton station's Platform 2 from which the train can then gain the up main via the crossover. In the normal (non-COVID) timetable times such movements can cause significant conflict with a half-hourly passenger train service. Had the crossover been situated north of Buxton signal-box there would be direct access to the up main from the Dowlow branch. The space occupied by the existing crossover could then be used to provide a facing crossover for incoming passenger trains to access Platform 1. Currently, the ex-LNW route to Buxton has seen only one regular scheduled freight service, the Ashburys - Dowlow stone empties. The opposite (loaded) working requires a run-round of the loco in the URS before departing via the Great Rocks Jcn line, but this route together with the associated run-round at Buxton makes the journey longer in time and distance in comparison.

 

[Western 52]

I noticed that at Buxton too. I guess it's an example of the old terminal station arrangement with separate arrival and departure platforms? Not a common arrangement these days.

 

[yorksrob]

Wakefield Kirkgate's layout always strikes me as being somewhat eccentric, with all Knottingly/Crofton trains having to use platform 3.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Wakefield Kirkgate's layout always strikes me as being somewhat eccentric, with all Knottingly/Crofton trains having to use platform 3.

Presumably rationalised before the regular Knottingley local service was re-started? If that had been saddled with the cost of a major remodelling it would never have gone ahead.

(I wasn't in the area at the time.)

 

[edwin_m]

Water Orton is strange, because all trains from Derby and stopping trains in both directions on the Leicester line all use one platform, the other being used by all trains towards Derby. Non-stop trains from Leicester use a through line. I believe this layout dates from a re-modelling sometime in the 1980s to increase speeds. According to Modern Railways (February) it's planned to change again, but if the layout is a drawn then trains towards Derby won't be able to call.

 

[Ianno87]

Water Orton is strange, because all trains from Derby and stopping trains in both directions on the Leicester line all use one platform, the other being used by all trains towards Derby. Non-stop trains from Leicester use a through line. I believe this layout dates from a re-modelling sometime in the 1980s to increase speeds. According to Modern Railways (February) it's planned to change again, but if the layout is a drawn then trains towards Derby won't be able to call.

Looks like Water Orton is designed to maximise the speed through the station towards Tamworth.

This means all the S&C is at the west end of the station to avoid paintwork at the East end impacting the through speed.

 

[Western 52]

Water Orton is strange, because all trains from Derby and stopping trains in both directions on the Leicester line all use one platform, the other being used by all trains towards Derby. Non-stop trains from Leicester use a through line. I believe this layout dates from a re-modelling sometime in the 1980s to increase speeds. According to Modern Railways (February) it's planned to change again, but if the layout is a drawn then trains towards Derby won't be able to call.

I remember sometime in the early 1980s being in the front of a DMU heading to Leicester approaching Water Orton. Ahead we could see what looked like another train heading straight for us on our line! It was a trick of the layout as we couldn't see that the tracks skewed either side of one another until a few seconds later!

 

[The Planner]

Water Orton is strange, because all trains from Derby and stopping trains in both directions on the Leicester line all use one platform, the other being used by all trains towards Derby. Non-stop trains from Leicester use a through line. I believe this layout dates from a re-modelling sometime in the 1980s to increase speeds. According to Modern Railways (February) it's planned to change again, but if the layout is a drawn then trains towards Derby won't be able to call.

Not sure any do now. Not seen the layout, but I would bet it is what was meant to go in if Water Orton resignalling didnt get chopped back like it was.

 

[Kite159]

Water Orton is strange, because all trains from Derby and stopping trains in both directions on the Leicester line all use one platform, the other being used by all trains towards Derby. Non-stop trains from Leicester use a through line. I believe this layout dates from a re-modelling sometime in the 1980s to increase speeds. According to Modern Railways (February) it's planned to change again, but if the layout is a drawn then trains towards Derby won't be able to call.

IIRC pre Covid there was only one train towards Derby which called there, the only other calls were towards Leicester

 

[Class 170101]

Cambridge North would have surely been more logical if the turn back had been between the running lines, reducing conflict and maximizing capacity? Given all trains stop line speed is not an issue.

Cross Country don't stop.

Seems to cope fine with the level of service regardless, with 2tph turning back; a centre turnback would arguably have been unnecessary 'gold plating'.

Providing a centre turnback would have been complicated at the south end by the fact that the points to platform 3 also connect to the remains of Chesterton Yard, the proximity to Fen Road level crossing and the river bridge over the Cam. All of which could have added to the cost, timing and disruption during construction. So pretty much a non starter I'd imagine.

The station was built the way it was without altering the signalling too much at the southern end. Platform 2 (down platform) is bi-directional as I recall but the crossovers were already existing due to Chesterton yard. As such the southern crossover is someway south of the station and as such re-occupancy times are relatively high.

Water Orton is strange, because all trains from Derby and stopping trains in both directions on the Leicester line all use one platform, the other being used by all trains towards Derby. Non-stop trains from Leicester use a through line. I believe this layout dates from a re-modelling sometime in the 1980s to increase speeds. According to Modern Railways (February) it's planned to change again, but if the layout is a drawn then trains towards Derby won't be able to call.

If you want to head for Derby just run the train via Coleshill Parkway and do a left there instead like this train.

Realtime Trains - 1D85 2203 Birmingham New Street to Nottingham

Realtime Trains provides live realtime running information for the Great British railway network using open data.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[A Challenge]

Similarly to Lincoln, but it seems even more strangely, though I'm sure there are other stations with other layouts, Stratford-upon-Avon has three platforms but no crossover for incoming trains, meaning that they can either use the headshunt (I assume) which can access only platform 2 or a double-reversal to access either Platforms 2 or 3. Having a bay or bays accessible only from the wrong direction running line with no crossover to allow direct arrival and only signalled in on shunt signals, as seen also at Taunton platform 6, does seem very limiting.

 

[zwk500]

Similarly to Lincoln, but it seems even more strangely, though I'm sure there are other stations with other layouts, Stratford-upon-Avon has three platforms but no crossover for incoming trains, meaning that they can either use the headshunt (I assume) which can access only platform 2 or a double-reversal to access either Platforms 2 or 3. Having a bay or bays accessible only from the wrong direction running line with no crossover to allow direct arrival and only signalled in on shunt signals, as seen also at Taunton platform 6, does seem very limiting.

Stratford upon Avon has a facing crossover for moves into platforms 2 or 3 for arriving trains. It is a very conventional layout.

Taunton and Wolverhampton are stations with bay platforms signalled for passenger departures but only non-passenger arrivals, there may well be others. The layout makes little sense to install today, but did make sense in the days of loco-hauled trains for things like parcels vans or spare carriages to be shunted into. It hasn't been updated for passenger arrivals because at both stations there's no real need for the platform.

 

[Watershed]

Taunton and Wolverhampton are stations with bay platforms signalled for passenger departures but only non-passenger arrivals, there may well be others. The layout makes little sense to install today, but did make sense in the days of loco-hauled trains for things like parcels vans or spare carriages to be shunted into. It hasn't been updated for passenger arrivals because at both stations there's no real need for the platform.

Huntingdon is another classic example.

 

[edwin_m]

Stratford upon Avon has a facing crossover for moves into platforms 2 or 3 for arriving trains. It is a very conventional layout.

Doesn't that crossover only date back to a fairly recent re-signalling? The layout in my 2005 Quail map was as @A Challenge described.

 

[zwk500]

Doesn't that crossover only date back to a fairly recent re-signalling? The layout in my 2005 Quail map was as @A Challenge described.

No idea when it was put in, but it's there now.

 

[A Challenge]

Doesn't that crossover only date back to a fairly recent re-signalling? The layout in my 2005 Quail map was as @A Challenge described.

I was basing this on pre-2010, when control moved to the WMSCC, which was presumably when the change was made, but I had looked on Google maps satellite view to check and missed the crossover, though have seen it this time.

 

[rower40]

Cambridge before the construction of platforms 7 and 8 - forcing all trains to use one looooong platform with a scissors crossing in the middle.

Ockendon; may not look odd, but the overlaps at the north end of the passing loop are such that a northbound train has to come to a stand in the platform, and the overlap time out, before a southbound train can be admitted.