Theory of General Minories

[theoldmansminion]

Clive,

 

It rather seems that great minds think alike - I am struck by the similarity between our two solutions!

 

 

 

I added a sinuous curve to make the build interesting and no rivets any where in my construction methods of course!

 

Ian, glad to hear you support Gayle Mill - I met a lady from there last year at Masson - I ask when you would turn it back to a cotton mill, which was not too popular!!.Guy Martin is quite a character - I had to keep stopping him putting his fingers in dangerous places - but he was very handy when we had a minor breakdown. And Pete, I am not a professional musician, but I do blow the clarinet and knock the piano out of tune now and again! Funny how hobbies come in similar groupings...

 

Cheers,

 

Howard

 

that is stunning work ! it flows so well, may i ask as to what you used for rodding on either side of the track?

[HAB]

that is stunning work ! it flows so well, may i ask as to what you used for rodding on either side of the track?

 

Thanks for that.

 

You will find a full thread on the rodding here:-

 

http://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=78&t=2030

 

Best Wishes,

 

Howard.

[HAB]

The LNER had mechanically worked colour lights, the subject was written up in the SRS magazine some years ago, a few years later there was also several pictures published in "British Railways Illustrated magazine.

There was photo's of the Kemp Town P Way in the Railway Modeller c1956, I have it here. Mick.

 

Ne'then Mick,

 

There is one of these in at Quorn on the GCR, and there were a fair number dotted about the system in the later steam days. The southern also had some arm-less semaphores at Wimbledon. located in the dark of the over-bridge. But these at Kemp Town were very early examples and must have been oil-lit. But I have never seen any info on them. I have even seen a photo taken from inside the tunnel and they are just out of view. We may never know now...

 

Best Wishes,

 

H

[theoldmansminion]

cheers howard,

that partically knocked me off my chair!

 

pure art!

 

Fin

[Tim Hale]

Getting back to the OP; the track plan is faintly reminiscent of Hayes (Kent) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayes_railway_station

 

Although rural suburban rather than inner-city, it was the place where the CEP and C -class were well known - possible uses for Bachmann's finest? The Art-Deco station approach is very modellable.

 

Tim

[fegguk]

I just happen to have the bits availble to make this.

 

I wonder if I could have some comment.

 

[Karhedron]

I wonder if I could have some comment.

The downside of that layout is the potentially large number of reverse curves a train could pass through. The neat trick of the original Minories is that the "dog leg" at the station throat actually reduces those reverse curves.

[HeavyDuty]

Getting back to the OP; the track plan is faintly reminiscent of Hayes (Kent) http://en.wikipedia....railway_station

 

Although rural suburban rather than inner-city, it was the place where the CEP and C -class were well known - possible uses for Bachmann's finest? The Art-Deco station approach is very modellable.

 

Tim

 

I've had my eye on Hayes as a prototype to model for a few years now - there is something very appealing about its simplicity.

[Pacific231G]

I just happen to have the bits availble to make this.

 

I wonder if I could have some comment.

 

This strikes me as being a good plan. Operationally it is the same throat as Minories but straightened out and making judicious use of Ys to avoid most double crossovers. There is an S curve on the first crossover, so the longer those points can be the better, but a direct approach may be more credible as the double dog leg of Minories can seem a bit artificial- as if the the engineers aimed the main line at the station site and missed. The Ys in the second crossover should largely avoid that so long as they're reasonably long (The Peco medium Y is about 5ft radius on each arm in the length of a 3ft radius medium point ) Too many Ys can look a bit odd but I think these should be OK. Even Minories has one S curve for an arriving "up" train going to the "down" platform.

This may be a silly question but does the exit have to be straight? A main line at an angle to the station would allow you to avoid the reverse curve on the first crossover The extra road between the two platforms is useful- Brian Thomas did it with Newford and it both added operational potential and gave more of a main line feel to the station but watch out for the clearance on the curved platform. I'll try it in Xtrkcad but I think that replacing the last Y in the second crossover with a left hand point and then using another left hand to access the centre road may give a smoother entry to the lower platform (platform 1?) What will the siding beyond the island platform and the kick back siding be used for?

[fegguk]

This develops the idea the y point Theme bit further. In and gets away from to many straigth lines. The reverse curves are challenging to be rid off Plattform 3 and 4 are most affected .

 

Edited August 29, 2012 by fegguk

[Karhedron]

This develops the idea the y point Theme bit further. In and gets away from to many straigth lines. The reverse curves are challenging to be rid off Plattform 3 and 4 are most affected .

I really like that plan a lot. I have been doodling plans for a 3-4 platform terminus for a while for my next layout but I may just ditch them and use that.

 

Do you think it would be feasible to add a triangular parcels platform above platform 1? I am thinking of the sort found at Penzance.

[Orinoco]

 

A very crude "Minories" -type design I did a while ago. The grey bits show ways it could be expanded, including a 4-platform station option, with no added length. Quite crude compared with some of the ones seen so far. It would almost certainly have to be built with hand-made track, I guess. Maybe one for the folks who have mastered Templot?

[Pacific231G]

This develops the idea the y point Theme bit further. In and gets away from to many straight lines. The reverse curves are challenging to be rid off Plattform 3 and 4 are most affected .

 

 

The gentle S curve through the whole station could look very good. I see you've dropped the two back sidings and added a fourth platform face( for railcars and parcels?) BTW What points are your designs based on and what software did you use ?

 

I had a go at your original plan in Xtrkcad based on Peco medium Y and medium radius points and came up with these, the first is your original plan and the other two are modifications to that but I think you've already improved on it.

 

 

I did find with unmodified Peco Ys that the geometry tended to increase the main line track separation a bit too much even more than the usual excess with Peco points (OK for an ex GW station maybe) but they could probably be shortened to give a better six foot (2 metre?) way. I don't think the reverse curves are a problem with your new plan as there is only really one and that's through a pair of Ys with a much larger radius than it would be with left or right hand points the same length.

 

Laying out the CJF Minories throat with Peco medium radius points and running stock through it I did find that the one reverse curve (through the two back to back points) still gave a lot of excess lateral movement with full length carriages so most of my experiments with it have involved either using long radius points for those two - which does lengthen the throat - or replacing one or both of them with a Y but that does tend to curve the throat.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Getting back to the OP; the track plan is faintly reminiscent of Hayes (Kent) http://en.wikipedia....railway_station

 

Although rural suburban rather than inner-city, it was the place where the CEP and C -class were well known - possible uses for Bachmann's finest? The Art-Deco station approach is very modellable.

 

Tim

 

Tim, Do you really mean CEP? I can't recall ever seeing one there - only (very occasionally) a VEP to replace our usual diet of 2EPB and 4EPB.

[fegguk]

I really like that plan a lot. I have been doodling plans for a 3-4 platform terminus for a while for my next layout but I may just ditch them and use that.

 

Do you think it would be feasible to add a triangular parcels platform above platform 1? I am thinking of the sort found at Penzance.

 

I think you could include a parcel bay by making the other platforms shorter and more curved. i wanted to avoid too severe a curve. I think there is still some scope for development

 

i used anyrail and peco code 75.

 

Diagramme added 31 08 2012

 

 

I have a particular interest in the centre road design so here is an other version. The centre road now acts as a parking place for the station pilot enabling platform 4 departures and 1, 2 of 3 arrivals at the same time.

 

Edited August 31, 2012 by fegguk

[Satan's Goldfish]

Resurrecting this, i can't help but think of Yarmouth Vauxhall station as it is now from a lot of these. I can't recall the plan off the top of my head but i feel i may need to tinker with it later.....

[Satan's Goldfish]

Tinkering done, here's the result.

 

 

The beauty of Yarmouth Vauxhall is it's 2 single line tracks ariving not a double track mainline dispite giving that apperance so services can arrive and depart on either line.

 

The track layout with the double slip allows simultaneos arrivals and departures from a couple of different platforms too

 

The position of the A12 road bridge could be flexible to hide the entrance to the fiddle yard.

 

To save length if just passenger services are required the headshunt and stabling road could be removed (the lines in yellow) which would shift the Reedham to Acle crossover a bit closer to the station throat.

 

Also the access line to the carriage sidings (green) could quite easily be removed to save space, or leaving it in place a couple of sidings in front of the fiddle yard could be added for stock between turns.

 

SG

 

Edit: i'm just wondering whether the double slip should be a single slip? Can't see much purpose in the Acle to Platform 1 option on it.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Satan's Goldfish

[Miss Prism]

A double slip could provide some flexibility in shunting (vans, etc) between platforms 1 and 2?

 

Besides which, most of the turnouts will be fitted with FPLs anyway, so a double slip adds no further hazard.

[trisonic]

Minories Lite - No urban grot!

 

Best, Pete.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Minories Lite - No urban grot!

 

Best, Pete.

I'm not sure if that's defeating the point of the plan or not?!

[James Harrison]

I've just been having 'a play' with some track planning freeware, trying to come up with a Minories-inspired plan based upon London Marylebone (albeit with a degree of Metropolitan joint working). 

 

 

So I've got the four platform lines of the GC/LNER, going into two running lines (the uppermost running line in the group of three being goods only.... the logic being that the third bore of St John's Wood Tunnel would be used for a goods loop).  I've added in the goods yard, at an angle to the passenger station.... I've given it a fair few lesser roads though for space issues.  Similarly the head-shunt I've moved around, to save a few feet.  To make it workable I then put in a loco refuge where the headshunt was- so you'd need a pilot for the goods yard as well as the station.   

 

I've read that when first opened Marylebone had a TT between the GC lines and the Met lines, which I've put in (an alternative would be a TT nearer the goods yard). 

 

I put in a pair of carriage sidings between the GC and Met lines (I believe there should be three, not two?)

 

Finally I had a 'what if' moment and added a pair of Met/ LT lines, though these merge into a single line near the TT and run into what in reality is now Platform 6 (?) and the spare stock line.  This connects with the loco refuge/ TT (I envisage using T-stock, Dreadnoughts and Metropolitan Bo-Bos, with the occasional Met steam loco being stabled in the refuge). 

 

Space required?  From the end of the platform lines to the end of the carriage shed, a shade under four metres, and around two and a quarter metres in width.  Add in some room for the station buildings and the run down to St Johns Wood tunnel and it's more like five metres in length.  Maximum train length is four old Hornby Gresleys and a 4-6-0 (a pacific would foul the points).

 

I'm trying to get it down to the size of C J Freezer's first 'Creytun' plan (three metre length and four car trains) in the PSL model railway trackplans book.  The only real way of doing this is to omit the carriage shed.  

 

I could of course shrink it down further to get the Minories bit down to eight feet, but then I lose pretty much everything that makes it identifiable as being Marylebone-esque. 

 

Considering my own lack of space at present, don't expect to see it being built anytime soon!

[trisonic]

Minories heavy, maaan....

 

Best, Pete.

[colin penfold]

Minories Lite - No urban grot!

 

Best, Pete.

 

Obviously never been to Yarmouth Pete???

 

More than enough grot LOL

 

[trisonic]

No, Colin - not in the past 30 years!s

Btw in New York I heard of a shooting in Wisbechistan..

 

How about someone coming up with a Minories that has no passenger service but an intensive Goods operation?

 

Best , Pete.

[ginger j]

 

How about someone coming up with a Minories that has no passenger service but an intensive Goods operation?

 

Best , Pete.

Surely the whole point of Minories is passenger operations? Personally I cannot see how it would work as goods only - maybe Minories could work as a parcels only station though.

Edited March 5, 2013 by ginger j