Minories for A4s

[Golden Eagle]

I hesitate to start my own thread on a Minories-inspired layout, but equally feel  grossly unqualified to intrude on the "Theories..." thread (which I am gradually digesting!). Having built my MPD during lockdown (at least as far as having all the track laid, points wired, 4-lane engine shed build and turntable motorised...then had to suspend progress for household renovation, I finally have my space back again and am beginning to plan the next phase as a "winter project".

 

My current thinking is that this will be a terminus, serviced by the MPD (which sits against the adjacent wall, perpendicular to the proposed axis of this terminus).

1. Era is LNER "Streamliners" (Unoriginal, but get given a Silver Fox aged 10(?), subsequently a Mallard, leave them in a box for 25y with no preventative maintenance when studying/"adulting", eventually have one's stored model railway evicted from one's parents' house, discover the locos still run...what else to do?)
2. Formations will be A4 + 5 coaches (would like more, but space is not (entirely) unlimited and there are other things I want to do with the layout!)
3. The "Up" and "Down" mainlines will (probably, eventually) feed into an oval with off-scene storage loops.
4. Platforms are representative (using the Hornby platforms in SCARM for ease of use - my intent is to have the "noses" conform rather better to the tracks.
5. Rather than run-arounds at the platforms to release the newly arrived locomotive, a station pilot (J72) will clear the rakes via a long headshunt, into carriage sidings (to the "south" of the terminus), after which the A4 can move via a separate headshunt to the MPD (east/west track to the north of the terminus).

 

Is this remotely close to how such a terminus might have operated? (Although priority is operational enjoyment)

[RobinofLoxley]

I wouldnt worry about adding your bit to the minories thread - I did it and I'm still here.

 

Personally I like the layout, but I will be surprised if anyone appears saying 'Thats exactly like Bristol Temple Meads' or some such.

 

What would be a possibility is a central relief track with a 3 way point allowing access from both platform lines.

[DCB]

Looks good.  Its only one platform short of Marylebone.   A loco release facility for off peak services would be good.   If you only have space for 5 coaches then a nice mainline set to match the A4 makes sense.  Lets face it the famous "Buckingham" layout only had space for 4 coach sets, admittedly they only ran small locos.     However this is pretty much the train service scenario I had planned for my "Bed" layout,  A terminus  and return loop to run 5/6 coach trains with pacifics we already owned.

I guess you would have at most two expresses to London  KX and a few locals or semi fasts, but not that many.   Should get through a days worth of trains in a two hour running session.  The availability pre war LNER local passenger locos  is a bit dire even D11s were still on expresses up to WW2.

Basically the arriving trains are dealt with pretty quickly, loco released to MPD, coaches to Carriage sidings, while departing  trains are arranged well in advance.    Full size Trains don't turn up unexpectedly, (Southern Withered Arm excepted) as timetables were prepared ages in advance, but trains could be delayed which adds to the fun and they did tend to bunch around certain times "Rush Hours" especially.   Regular interval  trains were a BR Days innovation.   

The Minories operation as envisaged was suburban a la Liverpool St or Moorgate where a train arrived and a new loco was attached at the rear and departed just about ASAP is a different thing altogether.

You could run Sir Nigel Gresley and Mallard Top and tail on 5 coaches like a 1930s HST its your layout. We did it with Triang Transcon diesels which was great fun

[john new]

In your own fictional bit of Eastern England the A4 took the lead portion of a through service from Kings Cross (or Edinburgh) into the terminus after shedding a rear portion somewhere else.

[Harlequin]

It would be great for the big Pacifics to have a really smooth run in to the platforms but the double slip causes a very sudden deviation for the route into platform 1 because it is nominally a 2ft radius part. That's a shame because I can see you've used Medium radius (nominally 3ft) turnouts elsewhere.

 

It's very difficult to replace the slip with normal turnouts without introducing some unwanted reverse curves but it might be possible to do it in such a way that the reverse curves are very subtle and only in the route to the carriage sidings headshunt.

 

(Or maybe you can just avoid ever sending large express locos from Down into Platform 1.)

 

BTW: Many of your Medium radius turnouts could be replaced by Large radius versions without affecting the plan significantly.

 

Edited September 21, 2021 by Harlequin

[DK123GWR]

I do like the look of the plan overall, but I have a couple of questions, one for you and one for the experts. I would ask you what you plan to use the siding adjacent to the top platform for? If the answer is to stable the pilot, that links in to my question for the experts: could the position of the headshunt for the carriage sidings cause problems? Any movement to or from them would block all arrivals, as well as departures from the lower two platforms. How would this be affected if the pilot were stabled on the opposite side of the station, in the siding next to the upper platform? Would it create additional light engine movements across the station throat, or could it, if used correctly, help to reduce them? I would be interested to hear the opinions of some of the layout planning experts on this.

4 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

I will be surprised if anyone appears saying 'Thats exactly like Bristol Temple Meads' or some such.

So will I with all the A4s!

[Chimer]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

It would be great for the big Pacifics to have a really smooth run in to the platforms but the double slip causes a very sudden deviation for the route into platform 1 because it is nominally a 2ft radius part. That's a shame because I can see you've used Medium radius (nominally 3ft) turnouts elsewhere.

 

 

Interestingly, given that Peco are normally kind to themselves when quoting radii, if you remove a double slip and replace it with a simple curve, the curve comes out at 43" radius.  Obviously the difference is down to the straight sections beyond the frogs, but I wonder if the tightness of the slip radius is that obvious to the eye, especially as there is only a 12 degree deviation?  Never laid one myself, so must try to remember to have a look at an exhibition, come the day ......

 

In any event, the slip makes the throat pointwork look suitably impressive .....

[john new]

Looking at your plan again; although I like the idea two queries.

 

1) why does the carriage head-shunt not bend left instead of being straight (effectively making a RH side branch) so as to become a 3rd line, albeit dead ended. Land cost money and in urban areas buildings had to be demolished so why would they have built that as drawn?

 

2) Your engine shed track seems an excessively long way out of the station. The short spur not joining it seems odd. I say that as it seems at first look to be the wrong side for the carriage sidings shunter to lurk and adding the link allows two routes for light engines going on/off shed to pass.

 

Edited September 21, 2021 by john new
Punctuation placement corrected ;

[Jeremy Cumberland]

9 hours ago, Harlequin said:

It would be great for the big Pacifics to have a really smooth run in to the platforms but the double slip causes a very sudden deviation for the route into platform 1 because it is nominally a 2ft radius part.

I took it for granted that platform 1 was for departures only. The engine facilities are on that side too, meaning that the loco can be attached and the train depart without interfering with incoming trains, allowing simultaneous movements.

 

The carriage headshunt could be the remnant of a branch that used to go off to somewhere else, which would account for its unusual position, but I agree that having the engine shed beyond the station seems very odd.

 

I suppose the loco spur is for engines laying over rather than the station pilot, but it's rather awkward to use, and I imagine engines not going to the shed would lay over in the engine headshunt if at all possible.

[Harlequin]

3 hours ago, Jeremy C said:

I took it for granted that platform 1 was for departures only. The engine facilities are on that side too, meaning that the loco can be attached and the train depart without interfering with incoming trains, allowing simultaneous movements.

 

The carriage headshunt could be the remnant of a branch that used to go off to somewhere else, which would account for its unusual position, but I agree that having the engine shed beyond the station seems very odd.

 

I suppose the loco spur is for engines laying over rather than the station pilot, but it's rather awkward to use, and I imagine engines not going to the shed would lay over in the engine headshunt if at all possible.

Minories specifically allows for inbound traffic to arrive directly into any platform and outbound traffic to leave directly from any platform so that it can handle quick turn around suburban commuter services.

 

The pointwork could be simpler if P1 was only for departures. The route from Inbound to P1 would not be needed and so the double slip could become a single. But that then might lead to further revisions because it would make more sense for the carriage sidings to be on the outbound side and the slip crossing would then not be needed at all...

 

If you can't arrive directly into P1 then it's not Minories any more but it might be better suited for the OP's intended services.

 

Edited September 21, 2021 by Harlequin

[KingEdwardII]

15 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Thats exactly like Bristol Temple Meads

Nah, for that you'd have to build the platforms round a corner turning through almost 90 degrees. It'll never catch on...

 

Yours,  Mike.

[Flying Pig]

3 hours ago, Jeremy C said:

but I agree that having the engine shed beyond the station seems very odd.

 

That was my first thought too.  It would be useful to see how the two modules fit the OP's available space, because if there's any way the shed can be relocated on the approach to the terminus that would be a much more typical arrangement.

[RobinofLoxley]

21 hours ago, john new said:

In your own fictional bit of Eastern England the A4 took the lead portion of a through service from Kings Cross (or Edinburgh) into the terminus after shedding a rear portion somewhere else.

Like Bristol Temple Meads

[Golden Eagle]

Thanks to all for the input - sorry for the slow response. Small matter of "job". I shall try to summarise and address points which have been raised. Apologies that I can't work out how to attribute different quotes to their authors.

 

On 20/09/2021 at 21:49, Harlequin said:

1) ...the double slip causes a very sudden deviation for the route into platform 1 because it is nominally a 2ft radius part. That's a shame because I can see you've used Medium radius (nominally 3ft) turnouts elsewhere...Many of your Medium radius turnouts could be replaced by Large radius versions

 

That's certainly possible - I've replaced the double slip with back-to-back turnouts and mediums with large throughout (with the exception of a single medium three-way needed to access the carriage sidings. However, it does move the carriage headshunt and sidings significantly to the "east" - something which I can't see any other way to fix while preserving a "single move from any platform to headshunt".

 

Quote

2) I would ask you what you plan to use the siding adjacent to the top platform for?

As with the original Minories, for a station pilot. That said, see 4) below

 

Quote

3) why does the carriage head-shunt not bend left instead of being straight?

4) Your engine shed track seems an excessively long way out of the station. The short spur not joining it seems odd. I say that as it seems at first look to be the wrong side for the carriage sidings shunter to lurk and adding the link allows two routes for light engines going on/off shed to pass

3) Because I spotted that an instant after I uploading the sketch! I fixed it, but forgot to edit my post.

4) The short spur was retained from the original Minories trackplan. It didn't occur to me to link it to the MPD track. I have done so in the new sketch, along with adding links from the MPD to mainlines for delivery of coal (which I had not shown previously). I have, however, preserved the option of an loco being able to arrive from the MPD, then back into any platform with a move west-to-east, then one move back east-to-west to whichever platform (whereas without the equivalent of the original link, four moves are required to get to Platforms 2 + 3). If not working with carriages, the pilot can still sit in the former spur while locomotives moving to and from MPD can bypass into the main station throat.

 

Quote

5) The pointwork could be simpler if P1 was only for departures. The route from Inbound to P1 would not be needed and so the double slip could become a single. But that then might lead to further revisions because it would make more sense for the carriage sidings to be on the outbound side and the slip crossing would then not be needed at all...

The carriages need to be able to be moved from (any) arrival platform to sidings, then back to (any) departure platform. As planned, this move to the headshunt is a single move from any platform. To put the carriages on the other side of the station would push the turmout into the carriage sidings a long way "east"... As it is, if I revert to a double-slip instead of the 3-way turmout, it will save 27cm of east-west length, which may be important (as I have maximum length of 5m to work with, but that also needs to accommodate a hard-right turn to bring the main-lines round through roughly 135deg (see below)

 

Additionally, you'll notice additional track between main lines and the MPD access roads. One of my intended moves is the delivery of a rake of 12 coal wagons (and general stores) to and from the MPD while staying out of the "station" tracks.

 

Quote

but I agree that having the engine shed beyond the station seems very odd.

 

Quote

That was my first thought too.  It would be useful to see how the two modules fit the OP's available space, because if there's any way the shed can be relocated on the approach to the terminus that would be a much more typical arrangement.

Probably not possible to relocate the MPD (aka I've already built it and really don't want to have to scrap that work unless there's an overwhelming reason to do so!). Perhaps a hazard of starting work before the plan was finalised, but I wanted to build something during lockdown!). I've put a sketch here of the overall concept, The space is constrained by a door immediately adjacent to the turntable and by another door adjacent to the "north east" corner. The (very crude) plan for a triangular "running track" is roughly what I think the Domestic Authorities will permit...I may have to accept lack of reality as the penalty for not having quite thought things through before I started building...

 

Plotting everything out did demonstrate that I'd probably  be better flipping the trackplan so that the throat is angled south rather than north. (or maybe angle the station so that the track runs more east/west...)

 

 

 

[john new]

Although bending the prototype, not least because neither are a terminus, viewing from the London ends both Bournemouth and Salisbury sheds were past the station. Leeds New (now just Leeds) also had a similar relation to the fairly distant Neville Hill shed.

Edited September 22, 2021 by john new

[DCB]

 The double track past the station sort of ruins it for me. OK Plymouth Millbay was like that and Ayr but its pretty rare.  Usually the MPD was some way up the line where land was cheaper.  I think much better use could be made of the space with a pretty nondescript through station a bit like Grantham where locos were changed  with the huge MPD,

My never completed Loft layout had the MPD serving a terminus located by a small suburban station bit like Monument Lane Birmingham.  The terminus itself was not modelled but ECS worked through with tank locos before the trains came back as expresses with locos previously sent off shed.   It was weird and the electrics killed it, far too expensive for my budget, but as a concept it worked extremely well, engines coming and going.

Back to Minories.   From one of the earlier drawings I would lengthen the loco spur to make 4 platforms and  make the lead to the MPD trailing with a short spur for the pilot.   Shunting would be on the outbound main line you don't need head shunts or shunting lines . Carlisle Citadel North end didn't have any and trains terminated in the dead end platform and changed loco in the through platforms there.

[Golden Eagle]

It has just occurred to me that the simple way to put the MPD up the line would be to turn the terminus around to face west…(morning coffee has apparently reached the synapses!).

 

I shall have a further play with SCARM this evening.

 

….in aid of which: would engines moving to and from the shed do so on the main lines, or would they be diverted onto parallel roads as quickly as possible to keep the mainline clear for traffic?

Edited September 22, 2021 by Golden Eagle
A further question…

[DCB]

The vast majority of stations just used the main lines for light engines and ECS moves, Paddington and Euston had separate loco and ECS roads an Kings Cross had 6 approach tracks  but they were very big and busy stations.  Obviously the incoming line had to be kept clear once a train had been accepted from the signal box in the rear, maybe three or five minutes, but shunts within station limits could be initiated on the outgoing line as soon as the train was about 1/4 mile clear of the stop signals.  Indeed generally the incoming engine would follow the ECS along the platform to wait at the platform outer end for the road to be set up for the MPD.  These moves were well rehearsed being done every day and sometimes several times a day.  It always looks good pushing a set of coaches into a departure platform as a train arrives at an arrival platform, something about one overtaking the other.

 

[Golden Eagle]

So...24h later than planned, courtesy of work...

 

Terminal flipped around the N-S axis, dedicated roads to MPD scrapped and carriage sidings moved to the north. Engines will simply run down the main line to a turnout to the MPD (not shown). Slip allows access from carriage sidings to any platform and (I think) is the fastest way to clear the platforms and keep the Up and Down mainlines clear. The alternative would be to use the "Down" mainline as the carriage headshunt, reverse the slip, join Up and Down lines somewhere else...and it probably could be done, but the pointwork gets quite messy.

 

In short, I'm back to almost the original Minories track plan, with some carriage sidings bolted on...

 

 

One thing I have left off iis the headshunt which Minories had coming off the track to Platform 3 (the short one). Was there a prototypical purpose for that? Or was it to add operating interest?

[Flying Pig]

Where do the trains go when they have left the station?

[ITG]

 

6 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

Where do the trains go when they have left the station?

A good question, as it would appear the only manoeuvre is to reverse back into the station. A reverse loop and/or a fiddle yard somewhere would add something.

[Golden Eagle]

12 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

Where do the trains go when they have left the station?

A fair point. If I had not made it clear above, this is one "module" of a larger layout. So far, the MPD exists and has been built. This is the next module. Ultimately this terminus will feed into (at least) a circuit/out-and-back, probably with a through station and (hopefully) with some other areas of interest as space/time allow.  

[Satan's Goldfish]

On 23/09/2021 at 22:31, Golden Eagle said:

So...24h later than planned, courtesy of work...

 

Terminal flipped around the N-S axis, dedicated roads to MPD scrapped and carriage sidings moved to the north. Engines will simply run down the main line to a turnout to the MPD (not shown). Slip allows access from carriage sidings to any platform and (I think) is the fastest way to clear the platforms and keep the Up and Down mainlines clear. The alternative would be to use the "Down" mainline as the carriage headshunt, reverse the slip, join Up and Down lines somewhere else...and it probably could be done, but the pointwork gets quite messy.

 

In short, I'm back to almost the original Minories track plan, with some carriage sidings bolted on...

 

 

One thing I have left off iis the headshunt which Minories had coming off the track to Platform 3 (the short one). Was there a prototypical purpose for that? Or was it to add operating interest?

 

Hopefully I'm not too late to the party....

 

 

After far too long absorbing info on rmweb, there's a couple of problems with mirroring the track layout of minories which makes it not work as well as the original design; mostly trailing turnouts were much preferred by the prototype to facing turnouts, so in the version you've drawn it makes the pilot stub face the direction of travel and (this is really grasping at details that there's plenty of proof to the contrary) it makes the first crossover for arrivals facing rather than trailing which would increase the cost with number of FPLs etc required.

 

I've had a go at a version that might work for you, apologies it's drawn straight in MS paint! Minories is back to normal orientation but rotated so the approach faces a more suitable direction for your MPD. The pilot stub is replaced by a couple of parcels sidings and end loading for CCTs that can be shunted from the departure line. Head shunt also doubles as MPD access track, pilot can either stable in MPD or entrance carriage sidings. Coal wagons will need to reverse from a platform face to be shunted down to the MPD (which is fine) but the returning empties can leave from the headshunt across the single slip to the down main. The single slip there also makes a run round which might prove operationally useful but doesn't create a facing point on the mainline. I've also drawn a version which saves a little space by using a double slip in the station throat and adds a stub beside the carriage sidings for the pilot.

 

 

 

Hope that helps

[Golden Eagle]

1 hour ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

 

Hopefully I'm not too late to the party....

 

Not... quite...too late...Baseboards are sealed, built and mounted on frames, all the track is laid out and I glued down the cork for the links between between shed, terminus and (future) main lines...this afternoon. (Glued cork shown below in blue). I adopted the advice above and have simply used the main lines between shed and station.

 

I don't think I've got the length to be able to bring the carriage headshunt back into the main lines without doing something odd in the tunnel in the top left corner. However, I could move the connection into the pilot siding into the headshunt/carriage sidings (green) to get rid of the specific facing point which you highlighted.

 

End-loading platforms can be added "south" of platform 3 (I've shown two, but suspect one would be sufficient(?). Alternatively maybe a second end-loading platform would provide somewhere for the station pilot without the need for a dedicated siding?

 

The loco coal trains I plan to run into and out of the shed will be 12x 20t wagons but my thoughts are to deliver them directly into the shed from the Down line (empties heading Up) without needing to shunt them via the terminus.

 

 

While I might be able to change the point at the end of platform one for a double-slip onto platform two and thus provide access from both platforms to a "right-shifted" coach headshunt and sidings, I can't see a way (within the available space and geometry) of giving platform 3 that access without the need for ECS shunts along the departure mainline, then back into platform 2, which feels "clunky"...