Theory of General Minories

[Zomboid]

However, contriving it so that it can be used for the shunting puzzle game as well as a less limited arrangement has merit. After all, having 3 sidings and a headshunt is wholly realistic.

 

I'd just fill up the extra space with vans that lack couplings when operating in puzzle mode, which can then be dispensed with.

[t-b-g]

16 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.

 

There should always be a time when the thinking has all been done and the modelling starts.

 

Any project I have ever been involved with has had times when there was just too much thinking. Overthinking a model, whether it be how to assemble wagon brake gear or a layout design, is as good a way to ensure that it never gets completed as any.

 

 

[Ravenser]

3 hours ago, Zomboid said:

However, contriving it so that it can be used for the shunting puzzle game as well as a less limited arrangement has merit. After all, having 3 sidings and a headshunt is wholly realistic.

 

I'd just fill up the extra space with vans that lack couplings when operating in puzzle mode, which can then be dispensed with.

 

Extend the sidings into a goods shed. In inglenook mode you can only work with wagons on the visible part of the sidings - the goods shed is out of bounds

 

A 5 wagon train looks a bit odd, and the length of the roads should at least allow for 5 wagons plus brake van.

 

And just off the top of my head - goods sheds in such locations were often multi-level. To get round the problem of restricting the movement of the traverser , the third siding can be access to a wagon hoist. The front of this provides a place to park the brake van during shunting

 

The very brave could even have a working hoist taking wagons up to a cassette mounted above the traverser.......

 

All entirely authentic in such locations

[Keith Addenbrooke]

An Inglenook doesn’t have to use a 5-3-3 set of sidings.  In one of Carl Arendt’s books he analysed the operating potential of different, smaller versions.  You could equally go for larger ones if you wanted to, though I’d suggest having blocks of wagons to avoid it becoming a full Sudoku puzzle.  Eg: double everything: siding lengths 10-6-6 with wagons in pairs works exactly the same.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Nothing wrong with making the sidings and headshunt longer as required, I was just using it as an example for fitting 3 sidings in and making it 'practical' for shunting freight. Probably doesn't help that my diagrams weren't to any sort of scale!

 

I think the 5-3-3 format works for what I'm building as it uses longer modern wagons than the traditional 10' wheel base, it is a bit 'train set' rather than 'model railway' in length but that's kind of what I was going for with the small layout anyway. The passenger trains are an unrealistic loco+3 after all if I was doing loco+5 for passenger trains then yes I agree, longer freight makes more sense.

 

As also mentioned (and it hadn't escaped me, I just forgot to mention it!) The siding lengths would also suit loco stabling quite nicely

[Karhedron]

On 11/09/2020 at 16:25, Nearholmer said:

I reckon the Minories goods depot is based heavily on Vine Street Met. That was a sprig from the circle line outer road, and I’m pretty sure there were crossovers to allow running round*, whether they used two brake vans I couldn’t guess - the situation in this photo hints that they might have, but doesn’t prove so.

 

 

 

 

Nice photo, I wasn't aware of the location before. The Minories goods shed always put me in mind of the one at Birmingham Moor Street (substantially shrunk of course).

 

[t-b-g]

18 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

Nice photo, I wasn't aware of the location before. The Minories goods shed always put me in mind of the one at Birmingham Moor Street (substantially shrunk of course).

 

 

That is a really nice photo.

 

It raises a couple of non Minories related questions and observations.

 

If facing points over which passenger trains travel have facing point locks, why not the trap points too?

 

Also, there is a fairly rare double sided trap there but not really any indication of why it might be needed. Anybody any ideas?

 

Thirdly, the platform starter signal is out of use (it has a cross fixed to the front) so was this taken during S & T work? A good excuse for those who haven't rigged up their model signals to work just yet!

[Compound2632]

Warwickshire Railways gives this photo as May 1915. The station was still in the process of being enlarged, with platform 1 on the right still under construction, so the siding in question is not yet in use for passenger trains. The 1945 signalling diagram shows the arrangement for passenger working; the trap has gone.

 

Surely any trap points on passenger lines must have FPLs? But anyway in general wouldn't they be laid out as trap sidings rather than simple single-bladed trap points?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Facing trap points are rare on passenger running lines. But where they exist, yes, an FPL is necessary unless a clip and padlock is used.

 

On the GWR island platform station thread, we looked at Tintern where a goods loop was used for excursion traffic.

 

Looking at that diagram shows why it is difficult to include a goods station on Minories. Moor St only manages it because there is a dedicated goods departure road in addition to the two passenger roads. 

Edited September 20, 2020 by Joseph_Pestell

[t-b-g]

11 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Warwickshire Railways gives this photo as May 1915. The station was still in the process of being enlarged, with platform 1 on the right still under construction, so the siding in question is not yet in use for passenger trains. The 1945 signalling diagram shows the arrangement for passenger working; the trap has gone.

 

Surely any trap points on passenger lines must have FPLs? But anyway in general wouldn't they be laid out as trap sidings rather than simple single-bladed trap points?

 

Well spotted. I thought that was a platform behind the signal but on closer inspection, it is still under construction, which explains the out of use signal too.

 

A trap like that is certainly not normal on a passenger line but as you say, it was still a siding at that time, so entirely appropriate.

[t-b-g]

8 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Facing trap points are rare on passenger running lines. But where they exist, yes, an FPL is necessary unless a clip and padlock is used.

 

On the GWR island platform station thread, we looked at Tintern where a goods loop was used for excursion traffic.

 

That was why it jumped out of the photo at me. It has been clarified now.

[Compound2632]

24 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Looking at that diagram shows why it is difficult to include a goods station on Minories. Moor St only manages it because there is a dedicated goods departure road in addition to the two passenger roads. 

 

Moor Street could be "represented" as a Minories if the main line is omitted. There was a variation of the Minories original plan posted a good while back with an extra loop linking the platform 3 road* directly to the arrival line. The purpose of this was to enable simultaneous departures from platform 2 and arrivals at platform 3 but it could go some way to simulating Moor Street's goods line, especially if carried off-stage through to the fiddle yard.

 

*Minories numbering, from rear to front, not Moor St numbering.

Edited September 20, 2020 by Compound2632

[Keith Addenbrooke]

I agree with t-b-g it is a lovely photo.  I think the structure behind the out-of-use signal was a wagon hoist, perhaps serving some of the Goods lines below?  Model that and you add unique operating potential.
 

 I wouldn’t have dated it so early, but it explains why the platform isn’t finished: I could be wrong but I think the new platform wasn’t for regular commuter use at first, but was more of an extra or relief platform, while the ‘island’ platform remained the main one - I think the concourse entrance was directly onto Platform 2 (counting either way  ).
 

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

That is a really nice photo.

 

It raises a couple of non Minories related questions and observations.

 

If facing points over which passenger trains travel have facing point locks, why not the trap points too?

 

Also, there is a fairly rare double sided trap there but not really any indication of why it might be needed. Anybody any ideas?

 

Thirdly, the platform starter signal is out of use (it has a cross fixed to the front) so was this taken during S & T work? A good excuse for those who haven't rigged up their model signals to work just yet!

 

My guess on the double trap point would be to protect both the visible line to the left (esp. after it becomes a Platform), and the Signal Box (immediately behind the photographer, I think), by grounding any runaways into the centre well.  Damage to the sleepers would be less serious than the risk of damage to either side?

 

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Moor Street could be "represented" as a Minories if the main line is omitted. There was a variation of the Minories original plan posted a good while back with an extra loop linking the platform 3 road* directly to the arrival line. The purpose of this was to enable simultaneous departures from platform 2 and arrivals at platform 3 but it could go some way to simulating Moor Street's goods line, especially if carried off-stage through to the fiddle yard.

 

*Minories numbering, from rear to front, not Moor St numbering.

I’ve not kept up to date with the whole thread, but I had a go at some alternatives back on page 42 (early June) which were inspired by Moor St, although the final details were different.  
 

When I was a regular user of the station (early 1980s) it was before Snow Hill and Tunnel reopened, so was a candidate for Minories - but the trains were rather uniform DMU’s at that time and the Goods traffic, 2-level shed and sidings were long gone.  It has been done as Minories, although the actual running lines head off to the right of the station on departure rather than bending left again as with Minories.

Edited September 20, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Pacific231G]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Moor Street could be "represented" as a Minories if the main line is omitted. There was a variation of the Minories original plan posted a good while back with an extra loop linking the platform 3 road* directly to the arrival line. The purpose of this was to enable simultaneous departures from platform 2 and arrivals at platform 3 but it could go some way to simulating Moor Street's goods line, especially if carried off-stage through to the fiddle yard.

 

*Minories numbering, from rear to front, not Moor St numbering.

That was me

For an intensively worked commuter terminus (which would probably have more than three platforms) it's very useful to be able to have simultaneous arrivals and departures from any two platforms. The logical way of working is for trains to depart in descending order of platforms so that each departure enables an arriving train or ECS to replace it. You end up with a repeating cycle of trains and getting the locos from the buffer end to their next train makes it challenging. It doesn't lengthen the throat overall but you lose a bit less than a point's lengh from platform three so making sure that the right trains used the right platform could add to the fun (especially if you throw the odd spanner in the works for your operators)

I've looked at using that connection to access a goods headshunt rather than platform three and with an extra point at the throat end it could be connected to a trackt hat could either be a trap siding or a goods relief line running into the fiddle yard.

 This doesn't actually add any length to the throat but I don't know whether the extra complexity in the pointwork would add to the main line theme or just look like Hornby plans book busyness.

The third track could also be going off to docks or private sidings, perhaps with its own separate shunting loco.

As it stands the two tracks lower right are the goods yard, probably with the end of a goods shed as a view blocker  and, with the third track beneath the main line would enable Inglenook type shunting. I'm not sure if the run round provided by the extra crossover would be long enough to be useful and it would block main line arrivals into the passenger roads. With this arrangement goods train can come straight into the main goods headshunt directly from the incoming main line without affecting outbound moves from the passenger platforms and an outgoing goods train can go straight to the outgoing main line via the main throat pointwork. 

 

Thinking of Inglenook shunting, I did build the puzzle into my small H0 terminus which has a two road goods yard but in practice I've found that the general working of the station - especially with a private siding facing in the opposite direction on the opposite side is interesting enough to operate without getting the tiddleywinks out (Alan Wright used a "tiddleywink computer"  to assign wagons on the original Inglenook Sidings layout)

 

Edited September 20, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Lacathedrale]

I think it's also important to not lose sight that real stations weren't always perfect - I come back to the old nugget of Holborn Viaduct - built on spindly arches that couldn't support modern (i.e. post-grouping) locos, recieving only 1/2 train lengths of the boat and mail trains traffic (Which were split further up the line), only one platform with a runaround and only two outermost platforms long enough for eight carriage trains, which were they so engaged would block access to the inner platforms, which were almost the exclusive domain of newspaper and mail traffic. All of these idiosyncrasies might be designed out on paper in a layout planning thread!

Edited September 21, 2020 by Lacathedrale

[woodenhead]

7 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

I think it's also important to not lose sight that real stations weren't always perfect - I come back to the old nugget of Holborn Viaduct - built on spindly arches that couldn't support modern (i.e. post-grouping) locos, recieving only 1/2 train lengths of the boat and mail trains traffic (Which were split further up the line), only one platform with a runaround and only two outermost platforms long enough for eight carriage trains, which were they so engaged would block access to the inner platforms, which were almost the exclusive domain of newspaper and mail traffic. All of these idiosyncrasies might be designed out on paper in a layout planning thread!

Almost like it was designed by a railway modeller for operational interest.

[t-b-g]

There is a balance to be struck between a layout being too easy to operate and not holding the operator's interest for very long and so complex that just to get a vehicle from one place to another requires a huge and complex shunt.

 

It is only really by actually running a layout that you find out how satisfying it is and by that stage it is probably too late to find out that you got it wrong.

 

My "benchmark" for operating a layout is usually "How do I feel about it after a 2 day exhibition?".

 

No home layout is likely to be operated for 2 full days continuously, so if you can do a full weekend without getting fed up, then you should be OK for a running session for a few hours.

 

My modified Minories, which has 2 platforms plus a centre carriage/holding road plus a goods/loading bay has been to around 3 or 4 shows as an unfinished work in progress but fully operational (except for n working signals) and has been really enjoyable to operate at each one, even though we have had to borrow inappropriate stock and didn't run any sequence/timetable, didn't have signals and were really making it up as we went along.

 

With the signals, correct stock and a good sequence, I am sure it would be even better.

 

To my mind, making only one platform available for arrivals and not making it easy to just put another loco on the back to take a train out, added a good degree of complexity to the operation without making the layout itself more complex.

[Lacathedrale]

@t-b-g do you have a thread or gallery? I saw some pictures of your minories variant a while back but I've since lost them.

[t-b-g]

57 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

@t-b-g do you have a thread or gallery? I saw some pictures of your minories variant a while back but I've since lost them.

 

I don't. I have started threads in the past on projects but I am so slow and get distracted so many times that they never end up showing much.

 

Part of me has become quite reluctant to post photos of what I do. I know my modelling isn't perfect and I got a bit fed up of other people who seem to feel the need to remind me every time I put a photo on! 

 

I will happily add some photos here to illustrate what I mean.

 

The layout was originally intended to be a scenic fiddle yard for the other end of the line from Narrow Road (which does have a website) 

 

http://www.narrowroadlayout.co.uk/

 

As such, it had to be able to handle 8 bogie carriages as a maximum length. So it was designed with a 4ft station throat and 8ft platforms.

 

In reality, it tended to look poorly proportioned and too "long and thin" and would benefit from the platforms and trains being shortened.

 

It may still get finished one day but it is no longer needed on Narrow Road which has a different scenic fiddle yard design installed, so mine is now purely an exhibition layout.

 

 

Not the best pictures but they show the design of the trackwork.

 

The line with the vans is a goods dock and the idea was to have a building and a canopy behind it.

 

A goods could arrive or be assembled in the centre road without blocking any platforms. The centre road could also be used to store an extra passenger set in "rush hours".

 

It did get a bit more scenic development but photos are scarce.

 

This was in the market square beyond the station building.

 

 

 

[Lacathedrale]

Interesting you felt it was too long and narrow - I think many people would assume that was ideal!

[Pacific231G]

On 13/09/2020 at 18:51, 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.

Hi Tony

I think that makes sense for an exhibition layout (remember exhibitions?) but for a layout designed to be operated at home or from the front I think you need full access to the fiddle yard from the front.

Bradfield Gloucester Road had/has a rather interesting fiddle yard arrangement with three storage sidings behind the terminus fed by a double track train length sector plate behind the carriage siding. if the inbound road of the sector plate held a train, that would enable at least four trains to be set up off- stage at the start of the sequence. 

 

That does require it to be operated from behind so not perhaps suitable for a layout that's going to be played with operated at home.

[t-b-g]

48 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Hi Tony

I think that makes sense for an exhibition layout (remember exhibitions?) but for a layout designed to be operated at home or from the front I think you need full access to the fiddle yard from the front.

Bradfield Gloucester Road had/has a rather interesting fiddle yard arrangement with three storage sidings behind the terminus fed by a double track train length sector plate behind the carriage siding. if the inbound road of the sector plate held a train, that would enable at least four trains to be set up off- stage at the start of the sequence. 

 

That does require it to be operated from behind so not perhaps suitable for a layout that's going to be played with operated at home.

 

I did actually make that exact comment slightly further on than the post of mine that you are quoting.

 

It is a very valid point. I am not sure I would want a scenic section blocking access to the fiddle yard on a home layout either.

 

Buckingham gets around that by having Leighton Buzzard above part of the fiddle yard but that fiddle yard needs virtually no attention to the trains other than turning the whole yard from time to time.

 

If you want a really radical idea, one I have just made up and never seen done (so probably has a major flaw in it somewhere), you could have a fan of points, hidden under a scenic feature, then a Denny turntable fiddle yard. You could then have two scenic sections, handed, attached one each side which turn with the fiddle yard, so one run through the sequence, it is a goods shed, the next time, it is a canal wharf or a wagon works. You could model the same scene twice but that seems to lack the impact of the two different scenes.

 

I just throw that out there as my contribution to layout design innovation!

[Clive Mortimore]

A simple traverser works at home and at an exhibition.

 

Not 4 trains, not 10 trains but 11.

[john new]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I did actually make that exact comment slightly further on than the post of mine that you are quoting.

 

It is a very valid point. I am not sure I would want a scenic section blocking access to the fiddle yard on a home layout either.

 

Buckingham gets around that by having Leighton Buzzard above part of the fiddle yard but that fiddle yard needs virtually no attention to the trains other than turning the whole yard from time to time.

 

If you want a really radical idea, one I have just made up and never seen done (so probably has a major flaw in it somewhere), you could have a fan of points, hidden under a scenic feature, then a Denny turntable fiddle yard. You could then have two scenic sections, handed, attached one each side which turn with the fiddle yard, so one run through the sequence, it is a goods shed, the next time, it is a canal wharf or a wagon works. You could model the same scene twice but that seems to lack the impact of the two different scenes.

 

I just throw that out there as my contribution to layout design innovation!

 

The four seasons layout a few years back was a similar idea. Two static fiddle yards and a rotating centre section to the layout - four segments each representing the same scene IIRC a small halt, but in the next season around the calendar. Rotated like a vehicle/drum wheel on a horizontal axle rather than spun on a vertical spigot as a roulette wheel would if that makes sense.

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by john new
typo aspun to spun!

[Keith Addenbrooke]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I did actually make that exact comment slightly further on than the post of mine that you are quoting.

 

It is a very valid point. I am not sure I would want a scenic section blocking access to the fiddle yard on a home layout either.

 

Buckingham gets around that by having Leighton Buzzard above part of the fiddle yard but that fiddle yard needs virtually no attention to the trains other than turning the whole yard from time to time.

 

If you want a really radical idea, one I have just made up and never seen done (so probably has a major flaw in it somewhere), you could have a fan of points, hidden under a scenic feature, then a Denny turntable fiddle yard. You could then have two scenic sections, handed, attached one each side which turn with the fiddle yard, so one run through the sequence, it is a goods shed, the next time, it is a canal wharf or a wagon works. You could model the same scene twice but that seems to lack the impact of the two different scenes.

 

I just throw that out there as my contribution to layout design innovation!

 

No doubt someone will now find an example of where it has been done, but I’ve never seen this particular variation.  

There are various tricks like these used in the world of micro-layouts, and Carl Arendt once proposed a similar variation to the four seasons quoted by @john new above, in which there were a selection of drop-down back scenes (exactly like a theatre set) to provide variety.  They could either model the same scene at different points in the day, or different scenes using the same track plan (with different low relief industries painted onto each screen).  You could also rotate scenes on a spindle as another idea.

 

I think the biggest hurdle to overcome conceptually is that we tend to model locations as fixed points, with the trains moving.  Even when my stations represent different places on a continuous run layout (this is not Minories of course), the buildings don’t move.  I wonder if it just gets too much to process mentally? My poor brain likes to have something fixed - the best example perhaps is how we persist in describing ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’ even though we’re actually the ones moving?