Jump to content
 

Theory of General Minories


Mike W2
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

So did the original version but it could only be accessed via platform three. I might be wrong but I don't think that would be protoypical- not in Britain at any rate.


Hence my earlier point about it being inspired by Vine Street, which is the nearest I’ve ever found.


E956AE05-715C-4CE6-BA34-958B83F7EB9C.jpeg.029dcf8442f09f614188dd94ff2c3a67.jpeg


Vine Street depot had a platform between the two sidings, and the only way in and out for goods was by lift(s) to street level. At a very early stage there was a sector-table joining the ends of the two sidings, not I think for run round, but to allow wagons to be circulated from ‘in’ to ‘out’ roads.

 

Once it ceased to be a goods depot, the building (a big meccano framework of girders) became a depot for lift and escalator repairs, then about ten years ago was converted to a traction substation, so it’s still there.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

I thought about the use of a pilot but...

 

- The loco dock is on the wrong side of the station . Getting across the station throat and then back would be a bit messy

- No matter what you do, the brake van will always be on the Country side of the engine. There is no run-round at Minories, so you can't get round this and get the brake van behind the engine - and it's simply incredible to depart from a London terminal with a loco propelling a brake van in front of it down the main line

- The same situation applies if you bring in a second goods tank.

- The only possible way round it is for the station pilot to pull the van out into a platform road and then sit there trapped at the buffers while the outward goods train is made up in front of it. Only when that departs is the station pilot released to go back to it's normal function.

 

St Pancras clearly was the terminal for MR Tilbury boat trains, as offering the main line connections with the rest of the MR system . That said , the idea of being able to run a Johnson Spinner on a boat train with a pullman is rather appealing, alongside your Genesis 4 and 6 wheelers.  (Other 4-2-2s could be used to taste, though the only ones actually available are Lord of the Isles, Caley 123, and the Stirling Single- and this kind of secondary terminus doesn't really sit well with the GW whilst the GN singles finished their days in East Lincolnshire. I'm not sure there are even kits for any other bogie singles)

 

 

It would be awkward, though not impossible. I can see several ways of doing it. One would be for a loco to arrive with a goods train and run into the headshunt. It then shunts the train, exchanging wagons with those already in the goods yard but ending up with the brake van next to it (CJF's suggestion of a short third brakevan road would help here but wouldn't be esssential. Once that train is shunted the original loco sits at the end of the headshunt while another loco turns up to take it out. The original loco is then free and either becomes the next station pilot or simply  shoves off back to its shed or to its next duty.  With the addition of shunting this is really just aping the turnover loco set up used for Minories' passenger trains. In reality I think that platform three would only be a passenger platform at peak times and otherwise it would be a two platform terminus with platform three released for other things - like helping to shunt goods trains. In reality, even when urban termini had adjoining goods yards as at Moor Street, there seem to have been goods relief lines to keep their operation separate. 

I'm not so sure about the GW and secondary termini; they did after all build Moor St. in Birmingham. The trouble was that they were badly placed for acccess to the City of London so it would take a fairly drastic rewrite of London's railway history to give them a purely GW City Terminus, perhaps by reducing the Met. to being just a belt line for the main line companies north of the river. The funny thing is this.  if you look at the Metropolitan and Great Western Railway joint terminus at Hammersmith and forget that it's now an Underground station  it  does have a very Minoriesque character. It definitely struck me that way when I went there to see the Steam on the Met specials a few years ago.

Edited by Pacific231G
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

It would be awkward, though not impossible. I can see several ways of doing it. One would be for a loco to arrive with a goods train and run into the headshunt. It then shunts the train, exchanging wagons with those already in the goods yard but ending up with the brake van next to it (CJF's suggestion of a short third brakevan road would help here but wouldn't be esssential. Once that train is shunted the original loco sits at the end of the headshunt while another loco turns up to take it out. The original loco is then free and either becomes the next station pilot or simply  shoves off back to its shed or to its next duty.  With the addition of shunting this is really just aping the turnover loco set up used for Minories' passenger trains. In reality I think that platform three would only be a passenger platform at peak times and otherwise it would be a two platform terminus with platform three released for other things - like helping to shunt goods trains. In reality, even when urban termini had adjoining goods yards as at Moor Street, there seem to have been goods relief lines to keep their operation separate. 

 

 

 

You arrive with a brake van on the back of the goods. If you shunt the goods as you suggest, you end up with the brake van at the back stuck somewhere in the sidings, and no way of extracting it.

 

The only possibility I see is that CJF envisaged treating the goods as fixed formation trains, like passenger services.

 

-One siding empty, one siding full.

-Back the inbound goods until brake van couples onto the wagons in the full siding.

-Uncouple between the brake van and the rest of the inward train . Draw forward, leaving the brake coupled to the wagons in the siding.

- Change points, back the inbound goods into the empty siding

- Loco draws forward into headshunt

- Loco backs down into outbound siding, couples onto the brake van , draws departing train into headshunt

- Second goods tank arrives , couples on the front , then departs with train , leaving original engine against buffers.

-The original goods tank then departs light engine.

 

A bit limited in terms of shunting

 

It's goods operation, but not as we know it, Jim...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
13 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

It would be awkward, though not impossible. I can see several ways of doing it. One would be for a loco to arrive with a goods train and run into the headshunt. It then shunts the train, exchanging wagons with those already in the goods yard but ending up with the brake van next to it (CJF's suggestion of a short third brakevan road would help here but wouldn't be esssential. Once that train is shunted the original loco sits at the end of the headshunt while another loco turns up to take it out. The original loco is then free and either becomes the next station pilot or simply  shoves off back to its shed or to its next duty.  With the addition of shunting this is really just aping the turnover loco set up used for Minories' passenger trains. In reality I think that platform three would only be a passenger platform at peak times and otherwise it would be a two platform terminus with platform three released for other things - like helping to shunt goods trains. In reality, even when urban termini had adjoining goods yards as at Moor Street, there seem to have been goods relief lines to keep their operation separate. 

I'm not so sure about the GW and secondary termini; they did after all build Moor St. in Birmingham. The trouble was that they were badly placed for acccess to the City of London so it would take a fairly drastic rewrite of London's railway history to give them a purely GW City Terminus, perhaps by reducing the Met. to being just a belt line for the main line companies north of the river. The funny thing is this.  if you look at the Metropolitan and Great Western Railway joint terminus at Hammersmith and forget that it's now an Underground station  it  does have a very Minoriesque character. It definitely struck me that way when I went there to see the Steam on the Met specials a few years ago.

 

That works for me. A slight variation would be for the incoming goods to be brought to a halt at the home signal (protected by an "off stage" outer home. The train loco is detached and runs forward and the station pilot is attached and does the shunting. The train loco can go to the spur for watering or go back to the off stage shed (fiddle yard) for turning. When shunting is completed and it is due to leave, the pilot draws the train to the buffers and the train loco backs on and takes it out.

 

The pilot can shunt passenger trains in between bits of goods shunting if necessary. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
33 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

A bit limited in terms of shunting

 

The original goods tank could shuffle the wagons from its train around the yard a bit, and assemble the next departure before departing light engine.  With 3 sidings and spots for different types of wagon, there could even be some point to it - very limited with only 2 sidings though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chimer said:

 

The original goods tank could shuffle the wagons from its train around the yard a bit, and assemble the next departure before departing light engine.  With 3 sidings and spots for different types of wagon, there could even be some point to it - very limited with only 2 sidings though.

 

You need a third siding to hold the brake van I think

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if we're making a bit too much of the difficulty of this. I've seen plenty of Main line Termini layouts with simple two road goods yards, either parallel to the platforms or fed by a kick back headshunt and I've never heard that shunting them was particulaarly difficult.

Dan did it with Birmingham Hope Street and actually used P3 as the headshunt for his milk depot. I don't remember that being a problem in his excellent descriptions of operating the layout. 

 

If we're prepared to accept using one of the platform roads when shunting goods trains then the problem goes away. After all, both we and the big railway have always done that with BLTs.  The truth is that even a three platform city terminus, with or even without a small goods yard , is going to be several times more complicated than anything we're coming up with so we're really looking for an impression of such a terminus rather than a full scale model.

 

For comparison I've just been looking at Windsor Riverside pre electric in 1910 when it had three platforms, a small goods yard and and simple engine shed. It's probably about as simple a double track commuter terminus with full facilities as you're likely to find

760596065_WindsorRiversidetrackplanmaxextent(notscale).jpg.ff9220e63207ec317f86314902578c28.jpg

This plan is based on OS 25 inch maps available from National Library of Scotland and hadn't changed significantly in 1933  (the two crossovers at the start of the throat were actually a scissors crossover) Even here there's no goods run loop as such and locos shunting goods trains would still have had to use the up (outbound) line as a headshunt.

 

This is my interpretation of the version CJF described to me with a short siding for guards vans (Did any of the cramped trip worked yards around  London actually have this though?) 

1264710841_minorieswithgoodsCJF.jpg.a287ded4be4cb94513d6916f1720d0a0.jpg

With this arrangement in eight feet you may use platform three as the loco release for the goods headshunt but that leaves a useful space for parcels vans at the end of that platform. The goods run round may seem short (and I may have set it for a rather short loco) but, looking at the plan for Frank Dyer's Borchester Market, which also used a kickback goods yard, there isn't a longer run round for goods there either. The other option would be to drop the releasing crossover at the end of platform three and connect the goods yard ladder to the incoming "up" line but I think that looks a bit messy.

Edited by Pacific231G
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I think if I was doing a Minories with the goods yard at the front I would extend the goods facilities along the front of the fiddle yard to increase capacity and make the whole frontage viewing space. The sidings needn't go all the way to the end, you could leave yourself a small area for some urban scenic work, with perhaps a yard entrance onto a street. An overbridge could give a visual split and mask the exit.

 

Bradfield Gloucester Square did something like that with the carriage sidings in front of the fiddle yard, so I know such an idea can work well visually.

  • Like 5
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I wonder if we're making a bit too much of the difficulty of this. I've seen plenty of Main line Termini layouts with simple two road goods yards, either parallel to the platforms or fed by a kick back headshunt and I've never heard that shunting them was particulaarly difficult.

Dan did it with Birmingham Hope Street and actually used P3 as the headshunt for his milk depot. I don't remember that being a problem in his excellent descriptions of operating the layout. 

 

If we're prepared to accept using one of the platform roads when shunting goods trains then the problem goes away. After all, both we and the big railway have always done that with BLTs.  The truth is that even a three platform city terminus, with or even without a small goods yard , is going to be several times more complicated than anything we're coming up with so we're really looking for an impression of such a terminus rather than a full scale model.

 

For comparison I've just been looking at Windsor Riverside pre electric in 1910 when it had three platforms, a small goods yard and and simple engine shed. It's probably about as simple a double track commuter terminus with full facilities as you're likely to find

760596065_WindsorRiversidetrackplanmaxextent(notscale).jpg.ff9220e63207ec317f86314902578c28.jpg

This plan is based on OS 25 inch maps available from National Library of Scotland and hadn't changed significantly in 1933  (the two crossovers at the start of the throat were actually a scissors crossover) Even here there's no goods run loop as such and locos shunting goods trains would still have had to use the up (outbound) line as a headshunt.

 

This is my interpretation of the version CJF described to me with a short siding for guards vans (Did any of the cramped trip worked yards around  London actually have this though?) 

1264710841_minorieswithgoodsCJF.jpg.a287ded4be4cb94513d6916f1720d0a0.jpg

With this arrangement in eight feet you may use platform three as the loco release for the goods headshunt but that leaves a useful space for parcels vans at the end of that platform. The goods run round may seem short (and I may have set it for a rather short loco) but, looking at the plan for Frank Dyer's Borchester Market, which also used a kickback goods yard, there isn't a longer run round for goods there either. The other option would be to drop the releasing crossover at the end of platform three and connect the goods yard ladder to the incoming "up" line but I think that looks a bit messy.

 

That one looks fine. There's a run-round loop, so no problem

 

I was commenting on the version where there are only two sidings, as a direct kickback from platform 3 , and no runround facilities at all

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chimer said:

 

The original goods tank could shuffle the wagons from its train around the yard a bit, and assemble the next departure before departing light engine.  With 3 sidings and spots for different types of wagon, there could even be some point to it - very limited with only 2 sidings though.

 

My Bold above.

 

My daughter wants me to lay a railway for her so she can practice doing scenic things and modelling. To keep it operationally interesting, minories was the first thing that sprung to mind, but it wouldn't fit on the boards I had available and she wanted freight too. 

 

I haven't got the plan drawn (and it's not minories anyway, just heavily influenced) but at the moment it's a single track arriving at a station with 3 platform faces (sound familiar?) and freight kick back along side, but with 3 sidings that are 3-3-5 wagon lengths so it can work as an inglenook shunting puzzle. I think if mirror imaged, it could work for the yard alongside a minories throat and add a shunting puzzle element to it as well.

 

Pictures below hopefully give an idea of the arrangement. The 2x 3 wagon sidings have their buffers level with each other, the 5 wagon siding has to go back further though to allow space for an access point. The headshunt for the inglenook is a stubby siding finishing where the 08 is in the pictures and still allows space for arriving freight to shunt back into the 5 wagon siding. Departing freight is drawn out by the shunter into the headshunt, and because of the point lengths the freight engine can couple up on the other end and release the shunter. In a more traditional setting than I've pictured, moving the brake van to the other end of the train just adds to the puzzle :)

 

20200719_111537.jpg.a8e5ad449cf564ca5f04d2805a4c6a60.jpg

 

20200719_111518.jpg.a09cdd714dbc68a9d9e03a514532a336.jpg

 

Hopefully that provides some inspiration on the yard front for somebody... I really must start laying that track for my daughter!

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

 

My Bold above.

 

My daughter wants me to lay a railway for her so she can practice doing scenic things and modelling. To keep it operationally interesting, minories was the first thing that sprung to mind, but it wouldn't fit on the boards I had available and she wanted freight too. 

 

I haven't got the plan drawn (and it's not minories anyway, just heavily influenced) but at the moment it's a single track arriving at a station with 3 platform faces (sound familiar?) and freight kick back along side, but with 3 sidings that are 3-3-5 wagon lengths so it can work as an inglenook shunting puzzle. I think if mirror imaged, it could work for the yard alongside a minories throat and add a shunting puzzle element to it as well.

 

Pictures below hopefully give an idea of the arrangement. The 2x 3 wagon sidings have their buffers level with each other, the 5 wagon siding has to go back further though to allow space for an access point. The headshunt for the inglenook is a stubby siding finishing where the 08 is in the pictures and still allows space for arriving freight to shunt back into the 5 wagon siding. Departing freight is drawn out by the shunter into the headshunt, and because of the point lengths the freight engine can couple up on the other end and release the shunter. In a more traditional setting than I've pictured, moving the brake van to the other end of the train just adds to the puzzle :)

 

20200719_111537.jpg.a8e5ad449cf564ca5f04d2805a4c6a60.jpg

 

20200719_111518.jpg.a09cdd714dbc68a9d9e03a514532a336.jpg

 

Hopefully that provides some inspiration on the yard front for somebody... I really must start laying that track for my daughter!

Three platforms handling main line loco hauled train with a single track main line entrance ? That sounds very familiar,  not a million miles from the old Fort William in fact and that had loads of shunting just for passenger trains. Add goods and it could be very good. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I think if I was doing a Minories with the goods yard at the front I would extend the goods facilities along the front of the fiddle yard to increase capacity and make the whole frontage viewing space. The sidings needn't go all the way to the end, you could leave yourself a small area for some urban scenic work, with perhaps a yard entrance onto a street. An overbridge could give a visual split and mask the exit.

 

Bradfield Gloucester Square did something like that with the carriage sidings in front of the fiddle yard, so I know such an idea can work well visually.

A good concept that avoids at least a third of the layout length being non-visual. I first came across it on Richard Chown's original Castle Rackrent although I'm sure it would have been done before that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always felt that 'kickback-infront-of-rear-FY' to be a bit of a trope if I'm honest, but I don't think there's much of the way around it. Minories in a 'minimal' configuration consists of 3 TU (train-length-units) - one is the station platform, one is the throat, and the other is a cassette FY. This seems to hold true regardless of scale, coarseness or gauge.

 

One dodge I had considered for a notional Minories-style urban layout with a friend was to only bother modelling the throat and first few inches of the platforms, leaving either end as plain benchwork in matt black paint, with some cassette or traverser slots. In this case you've only got 1/3 of the layout as visible space, but no need to model platforms/etc. where not a huge amount is happening (and all the gorgeous track/locomotive motion/wheels/etc. are hidden by wooden batons painted grey) - but you are at least leaning into the idea that the interesting bit is the throat!

Edited by Lacathedrale
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
40 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

I've always felt that 'kickback-infront-of-rear-FY' to be a bit of a trope if I'm honest, but I don't think there's much of the way around it. Minories in a 'minimal' configuration consists of 3 TU (train-length-units) - one is the station platform, one is the throat, and the other is a cassette FY. This seems to hold true regardless of scale, coarseness or gauge.

 

One dodge I had considered for a notional Minories-style urban layout with a friend was to only bother modelling the throat and first few inches of the platforms, leaving either end as plain benchwork in matt black paint, with some cassette or traverser slots. In this case you've only got 1/3 of the layout as visible space, but no need to model platforms/etc. where not a huge amount is happening (and all the gorgeous track/locomotive motion/wheels/etc. are hidden by wooden batons painted grey) - but you are at least leaning into the idea that the interesting bit is the throat!

 

I think the fiddle yard being masked is useful as a trick to increase the scenic frontage and reduce "dead" space for an exhibition scenario but it is less effective in a home based layout. If you operate from the back you don't get the visual benefit (although you still get more goods yard siding space) and if you operate from the front it restricts access to the fiddle yard.

 

Creating another "dead" viewing section by making the platforms another "fiddle yard" doesn't appeal to me. The scene of a loco simmering away at the buffer stops and the opportunity to model a station concourse and a bit of an overall roof is too good to miss.

 

A layout that is one third viewing and two thirds fiddle yard has the balance wrong for me. 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not wrong. I think a 'home operator' type layout generally has different requirements than that which will be exhibited as you have shown. After some research and discussion with @Dr Gerbil-Fritters in this thread https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/84099-the-eagle-has-landed/page/39/  suggests that for a home operator a balloon loop is more effective than a traverser or FY in representing the rest of the world.

 

It's something I've been fiddling with in my more recent plans. Ironically, the same kind of footprint is required for 2mmFS and Tinplate O!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Stop theorising and just get on and build a layout based on the Minories theme and enjoy running it. I did.

 

But Clive, I might get noticed in work doing that..... ;)

 

Anyway, I thought I'd quickly try and draw up a minories version of the plan I pictured above. P3 loses a lot of length and usability so I tinkered with it (below) to give some options. It does provide a couple of positions to stable engines on scene though waiting for their next service.

 

imagesNEANGTNV.jpg.dba3e4782a28da112e893e9fb4796178.jpg

 

Obviously the yard doesn't have to be used as a shunting puzzle. One thing I noticed from the version I'm building is that a freight length of loco+6 is the same as passenger loco+3 so the 2x 3 wagon length sidings could be for a block train of 6 tankers to be split in to.

 

The slight downside to the above plans is the yard could block the view of trains working the minories throat. But hopefully that gives a better idea of what I was trying to show in the photos.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

 

But Clive, I might get noticed in work doing that..... ;)

 

Anyway, I thought I'd quickly try and draw up a minories version of the plan I pictured above. P3 loses a lot of length and usability so I tinkered with it (below) to give some options. It does provide a couple of positions to stable engines on scene though waiting for their next service.

 

imagesNEANGTNV.jpg.dba3e4782a28da112e893e9fb4796178.jpg

 

Obviously the yard doesn't have to be used as a shunting puzzle. One thing I noticed from the version I'm building is that a freight length of loco+6 is the same as passenger loco+3 so the 2x 3 wagon length sidings could be for a block train of 6 tankers to be split in to.

 

The slight downside to the above plans is the yard could block the view of trains working the minories throat. But hopefully that gives a better idea of what I was trying to show in the photos.

HI Map

 

I had noticed your latest venture. When it is finished and we are allowed to make exhibitions of ourselves again can I join the operating crew?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

 

But Clive, I might get noticed in work doing that..... ;)

 

Anyway, I thought I'd quickly try and draw up a minories version of the plan I pictured above. P3 loses a lot of length and usability so I tinkered with it (below) to give some options. It does provide a couple of positions to stable engines on scene though waiting for their next service.

 

imagesNEANGTNV.jpg.dba3e4782a28da112e893e9fb4796178.jpg

 

Obviously the yard doesn't have to be used as a shunting puzzle. One thing I noticed from the version I'm building is that a freight length of loco+6 is the same as passenger loco+3 so the 2x 3 wagon length sidings could be for a block train of 6 tankers to be split in to.

 

The slight downside to the above plans is the yard could block the view of trains working the minories throat. But hopefully that gives a better idea of what I was trying to show in the photos.

 

Personally I would go with option 2. Having a run-round loop on the freight side increases operational flexibility a lot

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
29 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

Personally I would go with option 2. Having a run-round loop on the freight side increases operational flexibility a lot

So would I but I'd make the loop longer. To use the Inglenook properly, you could shunt some stock into the end of the siding to block it up or just have a marker on the ground, like a shunter (two-legged variety).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I may be in a minority but my view would be that shortening the sidings to create a true "Inglenook" is a bit contrived and limiting.

 

The Inglenook idea is a great concept as a tiny shunting plank but in my mind it doesn't translate well to being something that could be bigger but just isn't without there being a logical reason. 

 

You are basically saying that all goods trains will be limited to 5 wagons when if you made the headshunt full length and lengthened the sidings, your wagon capacity is increased and there are plenty of ways of making the shunting interesting.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
13 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I may be in a minority but my view would be that shortening the sidings to create a true "Inglenook" is a bit contrived and limiting.

 

The Inglenook idea is a great concept as a tiny shunting plank but in my mind it doesn't translate well to being something that could be bigger but just isn't without there being a logical reason. 

 

You are basically saying that all goods trains will be limited to 5 wagons when if you made the headshunt full length and lengthened the sidings, your wagon capacity is increased and there are plenty of ways of making the shunting interesting.

You've articulated that far better than I did Tony!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...