Theory of General Minories

[Pacific231G]

38 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

The GWR uses both banks of the Thames - Goring station is on the north bank. The LSWR would have had to run pretty close to the GWR at this point as there is only a fairly narrow gap to aim for. The alternative would have been a lengthy tunnel underneath Woodcote, coming out near Crowmarsh Gifford - the A4074 is by no means flat!

Indeed it does and the GWR did manage to nick all the best routes round there so I can see a later LSWR line boxing and coxing a bit till it swung north with the Thames after getting through the Chilterns while the GWR went further west to Didcot. You can see from the M40 as you descend from Stokenchurch that the Thames Valley is relatively flat round there  (a lot flatter than the Chilterns in any event) so, if our imaginary LSWR route followed the Thames to Wallingford, it could then have found an alternative route to Oxford where the hills do close in on either side of the Thames and Cherwell valleys.  

 

I'm sure though that Zomboid already has the backing of some very rich and powerful rivals to the GWR who can't wait to drive both his railways to Oxford and wipe the smug smiles from the faces of the Great Western's directors!

Edited June 16, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Nearholmer]

What about an LSWR route from Staines, to join the Met at Rickmansworth, effectively following river and canal, with joint operation northwards? I know that the GWR had significant bits of that route, but itsa  wide and flatway through otherwise difficult lumps , with plenty of room for another railway before things got built all over it.

 

Quite why the lSWR would want to project a service to Oxford I'm not sure.

 

Or, build the missing links in Watkins grand plan, giving through trains from the SER on the met to Oxford. That sounds a bit less unlikely

[Flying Pig]

5 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Or, build the missing links in Watkins grand plan, giving through trains from the SER on the met to Oxford. That sounds a bit less unlikely

 

If you really built the missing links in Watkin's grand plan you could run through trains from Bastille to Oxford and keep everyone happy.

[St Enodoc]

10 hours ago, Harlequin said:

My Nor ees

My grandfather always pronounced Minories (the street, not the layout) as Minnories.

[Joseph_Pestell]

5 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

What about an LSWR route from Staines, to join the Met at Rickmansworth, effectively following river and canal, with joint operation northwards? I know that the GWR had significant bits of that route, but itsa  wide and flatway through otherwise difficult lumps , with plenty of room for another railway before things got built all over it.

 

Quite why the lSWR would want to project a service to Oxford I'm not sure.

 

Or, build the missing links in Watkins grand plan, giving through trains from the SER on the met to Oxford. That sounds a bit less unlikely

 

The ring railway to join Watford to Staines was a very real project and recommended as recently as the 1948 Abercrombie Report. It would have been a simple route to construct but somehow it never happened. A Joint station at Uxbridge offers great possibilities for modellers who want to run locos and stock from many companies. But no terminus, let alone a Minories.

[AndyB]

7 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Had this line been built there would in theory have been no fewer than four ways of getting from London to Oxford.

1 Aylesbury, Verney Jct. Bicester, Oxford Rewley Road,

2. High Wycombe, Princes Risborough, Thame, Cowley, Oxford GWR,

3. Reading, Didcot, Oxford GWR

4. Aylesbury, Quainton Road, Brill, Oxford (St.Clements/Magdalen Bridge) and that would havw been the shortest of the four (not necessarily the fastest)

 

 

I'm imaging how much more complicated the average Inspector Morse storyline would have been with all these different ways for suspects to cover their tracks. 

 

For what it's worth....my own Minories effort with continuous run.

What was I thinking!

 

[Zomboid]

In the fantasy world I was working in, the LSWR had built the Reading to Basingstoke line rather than the GWR, and instead of approaching Reading from the west, it runs round the south of the town to join the line from London around Winnersh. Reading South station doesn't exist as a terminus, instead it's just to the north of the GWR station from where the line runs kind of parallel to the GWR to Wallingford (where there's a station somewhere near the town) and then it'll cut the corner off to head towards New Marston where there's a triangular junction with the Met/GCR line and Oxford Magdalen. The whole thing gives the GCR access to Southampton and the rest of the south coast, and the LSWR a route to the north east that doesn't involve the GWR (where relations have been somewhere close to non existent since the South Western established itself as both the first and second choice way to get between London, Exeter and Plymouth).

 

Of course the timing doesn't work that well with the MSLR London Extension being so late, but prior to that, once you get to Oxford there's always the LNWR to collaborate with in the first instance. But essentially I like the LNER and Southern and their constituents, don't care either way about the LMS, and don't really like anything GWR

 

What's this got to do with Minories? Not a whole lot. In that world even Oxford Magdalen would probably be a through station...

Edited June 17, 2020 by Zomboid

[Nearholmer]

Yes, and somehow the obvious (to the LNWR anyway) route from Euston via the “Worcester Curve” at Bletchley has been been missed from the list.

[Compound2632]

All this talk of the South Western in the Thames Valley - remember, please, that the line to Reading was South Eastern, over which the South Western had running powers from Wokingham. But curiously, 5 chains of the link between the South Eastern and Great Western is shown as South Western on the RCH junction diagram. A South Western route to Oxford would follow the Thames Valley from Datchet (leaving Windsor & Eton on a stub), swinging through Taplow to cross the river just downstream of Cliveden, then staying on the right bank until another crossing at Henley. From there, it's a stiff 1:50 climb up to Nettlebed and a similar drop down to Benson. (Summit tunnel? The chalk ought to be easy going. To quote the prospectus: "The engineering works are light and will involve but trifling expense".) Then it's easy going on the left bank through Cowley before swinging round into the Joint station at St Clements. Roughly 39 miles of new railway. 

Edited June 17, 2020 by Compound2632

[Nearholmer]

Yes, I wondered about that option before deciding that it would be cheaper from Staines.

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Yes, I wondered about that option before deciding that it would be cheaper from Staines.

 

And then via Stokenchurch? The gradients would be even more formidable.

 

Need a new thread: "Fantasy termini and how to reach them".

Edited June 17, 2020 by Compound2632

[Zomboid]

57 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

All this talk of the South Western in the Thames Valley - remember, please, that the line to Reading was South Eastern, over which the South Western had running powers from Wokingham. But curiously, 5 chains of the link between the South Eastern and Great Western is shown as South Western on the RCH junction diagram. A South Western route to Oxford would follow the Thames Valley from Datchet (leaving Windsor & Eton on a stub), swinging through Taplow to cross the river just downstream of Cliveden, then staying on the right bank until another crossing at Henley. From there, it's a stiff 1:50 climb up to Nettlebed and a similar drop down to Benson. (Summit tunnel? The chalk ought to be easy going. To quote the prospectus: "The engineering works are light and will involve but trifling expense".) Then it's easy going on the left bank through Cowley before swinging round into the Joint station at St Clements. Roughly 39 miles of new railway. 

That's a lot more reasoned thinking than I managed. Like it a lot - it would probably be a much better way than the interminable trundle between London and Reading via Ascot. And maybe the SER could extend through Reading to meet it somewhere west of Henley.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

I've never had much joy with "might have been" schemes - inspired by the GCR extension when I first came across it (aged 12 - 14), I once drew a line from Birmingham to London to give the MR a chance to compete with the Premier Line.  Not knowing London I stuck a Minories-style terminus in the most convenient bit of green I could find: St. James' Park.  One Act of Parliament that probably wouldn't receive Royal Assent!

 

My only other semi-serious attempt from years ago was for a back-to-back pair of termini (a la Minories / Serionim, and without a junction in-between).  It was for a very compact N Gauge layout based in Scotland, to use the Minitrix Class 27.  One end was in Ullapool, with a new Terminus in Garve (40 miles away) directly under the bridge.  I think I used a CJF design for one station, which kept the shunting "on stage," but so the other one was different I had shunting under the bridge, which destroyed the illusion.  It never got built.

 

Yesterday I posted Elements of Minories as a kind of "first principles" exploration of the idea of a compact urban terminus that could up as Minories.  Taking my lead from @Pacific231G I used a 'faux' double track, but kept other parts of Minories.  The main drawback I could see with my scheme were the very short trains.  Keeping in mind modellers who've not previously considered a Terminus / FY layout, I've now stretched it to fit into an 8' x 4' space (a kind of train set replacement).

 

This is now really just Cousin of Minories, the result of moving away step by step:

 

 

 

My baseboards are now three 4' x 1' boards and a pair of 3' x 1' boards.

 

1.  Trains can be longer - the fiddle yard has much more space without needing a longer room.

2.  The engine stabling point no longer connects to the Fiddle Yard - it could easily be extended into the first bridge to give the impression of a double track leaving the station.

3.  The end curve is a Setrack 3rd radius.  I played with a second 4th radius line but the wider spacing that comes with Setrack curves looked out of place.  As a single line scheme this no longer looks like a Minories derivative (as others have noted in recent posts).

4.  The loading dock is flipped, so shunting is different.   I assume road engines do this once passengers have disembarked (before a new engine comes in to take out the coaches). 

5.  Serving Platform 1 with ECS movements now has the problem that they would run along the whole main line, so we're back to the original 'engine swap' operating scheme.

6.  The Goods Yard is served via a kickback, as in the later developments of Minories (although I only have two platforms, not 3, to begin with, to keep my width down).

7.  The Goods Yard is per my previous drawing.  I think CJF used a twin track Goods Shed.

8.  The Scenic divides are essential - as is how to treat the extra board.

 

While I've tried to adhere to as many aspects of the Theory of General Minories as in my previous drawing, this way of extending the design highlights the differences: a buffer stop.

Edited October 7, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Need a new thread: "Fantasy termini and how to reach them".

 

I was just thinking that, should 1845 come round again any time soon, we'll be ready.

[ejstubbs]

36 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

The end curve is a Setrack 3rd radius.  I played with a second 4th radius line but the wider spacing that comes with Setrack curves looked out of place.

 

I reckon you can get away with using 3rd and 4th setrack radius curves with streamline track spacing, without it looking odd, if you mix and match a bit.  Here's a fragment with part numbers shown, based on the curve in to the fiddle yard on my layout:

 

 

The bits of flexi are dead straight so could be cut from setrack straights if preferred (which is what I usually do).

 

Am I right in thinking that your plan is based on medium and long radius Streamline turnouts, and doesn't use any short radius at all?

 

 

Edited June 17, 2020 by ejstubbs

[St Enodoc]

4 minutes ago, ejstubbs said:

 

I reckon you can get away with using 3rd and 4th setrack radius curves with streamline track spacing, without it looking odd, if you mix and match a bit.  Here's a fragment with part numbers shown, based on the curve in to the fiddle yard on my layout:

 

 

The bits of flexi are dead straight so could be cut from setrack straights if preferred (which is what I usually do).

 

 

Do you still get enough passing clearance with that reduced separation?

[Nearholmer]

38 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

his is now really just Cousin of Minories,

 

I've no axe to grind as to whether single-line termini are admisable in this thread or not, but I would say that designing them, and designing FY interfaces, is significantly different from Minories. I would regard them as "second cousins twice removed".

[Zomboid]

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

This is now really just Cousin of Minories, the result of moving away step by step:

 

Of course instead of the FY, a second scenic station could be provided. Let's call it a distant cousin of Seironim. With suitable view blockers the whole thing could be scenic, though it would have a different service pattern, and you'd be limited to tank engines and diesels.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

9 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Do you still get enough passing clearance with that reduced separation?

It would partly depend on the length of rolling stock being used.  My coaches are generally 57’ so not as bad as newer ones, but my branch train suggestion was a GW autocoach, which I think varied in length and could be quite a bit longer (I think the Hornby / Airfix ones are longer, but I don’t know about the Bachmann version).
 

If the layout is operated one train at a time, and this second curve is used as a running line (not a carriage siding or engine stabling point), then I suppose it shouldn’t actually matter?

 

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

I've no axe to grind as to whether single-line termini are admisable in this thread or not, but I would say that designing them, and designing FY interfaces, is significantly different from Minories. I would regard them as "second cousins twice removed".

Perfectly fair point - I’m happy to admit to exploring how far the boundary will stretch before the connection breaks: having had a look at it, I would agree that a genuine U-shaped Minories derivative really ought to have a double track line to qualify: running as a conventional double track rather than a running line / relief line (hence more likely to have a Minories throat when arriving at the station): @ejstubbs idea could be really helpful in this respect.  I hadn’t expected my drawing to look so much unlike Minories, given I have retained various other elements, but the family resemblance is now getting too hard to see.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

5 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Of course instead of the FY, a second scenic station could be provided. Let's call it a distant cousin of Seironim. With suitable view blockers the whole thing could be scenic, though it would have a different service pattern, and you'd be limited to tank engines and diesels.

With a bit more space it could be a proper Minories / Seironim model, and with your curved Interstitial at point [3] there’d be scope to have a hidden continuous run using the MAD / SAD round the back of the stations and across a lift out section.

[Harlequin]

I think it's inevitable that in any thread discussion is free-wheeling and will veer off-topic for long periods. We're all creative people and we like to share new ideas that are sparked off by the original topic.

 

But we should think about the new reader who is looking for the information described in the title and the opening post...!

 

[woodenhead]

2 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

With a bit more space it could be a proper Minories / Seironim model, and with your curved Interstitial at point [3] there’d be scope to have a hidden continuous run using the MAD / SAD round the back of the stations and across a lift out section.

 

The issue I would have with a Minories / Seironim layout is that Minories represents the Urban end of the line with intense commuting services - would it really only serve one location on outbound services (quickly thinks Fenchurch Street, surely trains go to more than one destination).  In effect being a mirror Seironim represents another intense service commuter station but at the country end, Minories should send trains to more than one location to justify the intensity.

[StuartMc]

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

2.  The engine stabling point no longer connects to the Fiddle Yard - it could easily be extended into the first bridge to give the impression of a double track leaving the station.

 

Unless you are running a sparse timetable for a backwater station, I think the latter idea, with "cosmetic" second running line to make the station double track would look a lot more convincing for effectively no extra work or space. It think the two lines would need to run parallel to look convincing.

 

You could even model a p.w. gang or similar on that line, which would explain why trains need to take the wrong line out of the station - presuming they would use a theoretical off-stage crossover. Or you could rely on the fact that individual train routes through station exists are sometimes convoluted so no one will take much notice anyway!

 

Stuart

[St Enodoc]

13 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

If the layout is operated one train at a time, and this second curve is used as a running line (not a carriage siding or engine stabling point), then I suppose it shouldn’t actually matter?

Unless you try to run a train on each track at the same time. Don't ask me how I know this.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

 

The issue I would have with a Minories / Seironim layout is that Minories represents the Urban end of the line with intense commuting services - would it really only serve one location on outbound services (quickly thinks Fenchurch Street, surely trains go to more than one destination).  In effect being a mirror Seironim represents another intense service commuter station but at the country end, Minories should send trains to more than one location to justify the intensity.

I can’t comment on London Stations, but thinking of B’ham Moor St. again as a Minories candidate, IIRC the local Services in the 1970s / 1980s only served two lines, to Leamington Spa or Stratford, but some Leamington trains terminated at Dorridge, and some Stratford trains terminated at Shirley (I think).  All the trains were the same and basically stopped at all stations, but it wouldn’t stretch things too far to imagine different trains for different Services (ie: local or semi-fast).  A Seironim could perhaps be used as a scenic fiddle yard?  Heritage lines run end to end, but I really can’t picture one using a Minories (for multiple reasons).

Edited June 17, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke
(clarification / terminology)