Theory of General Minories

[simon b]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

You could do all the shunting with the loco that brought the goods in. Due to the small size of the yard it would very likely be a trip working from a larger yard with a tank loco rather than something bigger that has worked a long distance but in many places, shunting was done by the same loco that brought the train in.

 

The pilot would only be needed briefly when the shunting is completed and it is departure time, to draw the complete train to the buffer stop end.

 

Either version is very limited in terms of goods facilities.

 

Where the Mk 2 version does score higher is in the detaching of tail loads from a passenger train. Trying to get a van off the back of a train into the kick back from the upper two platforms is a nightmare in Mk 1 but easy in Mk 2.

 

You don't have to have a shed. It could just be a loading platform, perhaps with a canopy.

Had some time this morning so layed out the mk2 version, but reversed the viewing side so the goods area is at the rear. This seems to flow quite well, using a mix of medium and long radius points the scenic area is 8ft.

 

 

[t-b-g]

1 minute ago, simon b said:

Had some time this morning so layed out the mk2 version, but reversed the viewing side so the goods area is at the rear. This seems to flow quite well, using a mix of medium and long radius points the scenic area is 8ft.

 

 

 

That looks very nicely balanced. I see my references to tank locos may not apply to your chosen period!

[simon b]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

That looks very nicely balanced. I see my references to tank locos may not apply to your chosen period!

Not quite, but class 15 and 16 diesels are a good equivalent.  

 

Looking at it I wonder if the goods area would be better if it was raised above the station area slightly, I could move the headshunt point back a little to gain height.

Edited December 28, 2020 by simon b

[Pacific231G]

14 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

It is my understanding the MRC 'Minories GN' layout was originally a verbatim copy of the plan envisaged by CJF, but has subsequently been altered that the two rear platforms are now through lines to provide an oval connection. It brought to mind - what is the Minories equivalent of a through station? Is it just one side of Minories with the remainder off-scene (like Minories GN) or are there equally suitable through station designs akin to Minories? Presumably the additional complication of bays for terminating services in one or both directions is offset by my assumption of no integrated goods platforms (those presumably being in an adjacent yard, rather than being dealt with on the platforms).

 

 

Yes. It was built by Tom Cunnington and other members of the MRC but as a personal rather than a club project. It was a fiftieth anniversary tribute to the plan's original publication and, apart from not being a folding layout, followed it as closely as possible though with some upscaling from OO to EM which made it about a foot longer and a bit wider, It was built while CJF- who was a member of the MRC all his adult life - was still alive. It wasn't the first time he got to see his best known plan made concrete. 

 

A few years after it was fisrt exhibited they did add a loco length addition at the buffer end of platforms one and two to give greater flexibility and to add a street level station building.

 

(For some time I assumed this to be a traverser but it was just a short plain extension) 

 

There's a fuller description of the layout here

https://www.themodelrailwayclub.org/layouts/minories/

Talking to Tom Cunnington the last time I saw it, when it was in its through station mode, they wanted to run goods trains so, in principle, it is still a passenger terminus but with goods only lines extending to the docks beyond. That also provides a larger fiddle yard able to store a wider range of trains than the six road traverser. Personally I preferred it in its "pure" Minories form but it's not my layout and can still be exhibited in that form. 

 

An actual through station with some trains terminating and reversing wouldn't neeed direct access to both up and down platforms from both sides of the main line and, as that involves a facing as well as a trailing crossover, would traditionally have used a trailing crossover to allow terminating trains to be shunted to the other side for departure. With MU trains that requires the driver to change ends during the shunt so I think it's not uncommon nowadays to have a single facing crossover so that a terminating down train (say) runs directly into the up platform ready to depart.  ISTR seeing that at Shepherd's Bush on the West London Extension Railway. 

Edited December 28, 2020 by Pacific231G

[t-b-g]

21 minutes ago, simon b said:

Not quite, but class 15 and 16 diesels are a good equivalent.  

 

Looking at it I wonder if the goods area would be better if it was raised above the station area slightly, I could move the headshunt point back a little to gain height.

 

If it was me I would keep it level. Shortening the headshunt to get a small raise in level is not a good trade off for me.

 

15 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Yes. It was built by Tom Cunnington and other members of the MRC but as a personal rather than a club project. It was a fiftieth anniversary tribute to the original plan and, apart from not being a folding layout, followed it as closely as possible though with some upscaling from OO to EM which made it about a foot longer and a bit wider, It was built while CJF- who was a member of the MRC all his adult life - was still alive so-not for the first time- he did get to see his plan made concrete. 

 

A few years after it was fisrt exhibited they did add a loco length addition at the buffer end of platforms one and two to give greater flexibility and to add a street level station building.

 

(For some time I assumed this to be a traverser but it was just a short plain extension) 

 

There's a fuller description of the layout here

https://www.themodelrailwayclub.org/layouts/minories/

Talking to Tom Cunnington the last time I saw it, when it was in its through station mode, they wanted to run goods trains so in principle it is still a passenger terminus but with goods only lines extending to the docks beyond and with a larger fiddle yard able to store a larger range of trains than the six road traverser. Personally I preferred it in its "pure" Minories form but it's not my layout and can still be exhibited in that form. 

 

An actual through station wouldn't neeed direct access to both up and down platforms from both sides of the main line and, as that involves a facing crossover, would traditionally have used a trailing crossover to allow terminating trains to be shunted to the other side for departure but, as that requires drivers to change ends during the shunt, I think it's not uncommon nowadays to have a single facing crossover so that a terminating say down train runs directly into the up platform ready to depart.  

 

I have seen the layout in both the original and the extended continuous run forms and I much preferred watching the terminus version.

 

The continuous run takes up very much more space in an exhibition hall and has lots of extra baseboards to set up and take down for what I think is a less interesting operation on the layout. In any model railway situation, a train that has to stop, turn around and go back is much more interesting to me than one that goes round in a circle.

Edited December 28, 2020 by t-b-g
To add content

[Flying Pig]

55 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

An actual through station with some trains terminating and reversing wouldn't neeed direct access to both up and down platforms from both sides of the main line and, as that involves a facing as well as a trailing crossover, would traditionally have used a trailing crossover to allow terminating trains to be shunted to the other side for departure.

 

You can add a bay for trains to stand in clear of the main awaiting departure, but it would usually (though not always) be on the departure side - i.e. where the loco siding is on Minories.  The whole throat can be done with three points, though you need a second crossover at the other end for running round.

 

On the other hand, it could get quite complicated.  Lincoln Central is a favourite of mine - several routes terminated from the right, but note that there isn't a single facing crossover. Also, none of the arrival platforms 6 to 8 is signalled for departure towards the right, so all trains had to be shunted to the bay platforms 1 to 4 before departing.  The presence of Pelham Street level crossing(s) right over the throat makes this the ultimate Lincolnshire nightmare.  Still not Minories though

[john new]

It has always surprised me that for exhibition use a U shaped cheat is not employed for terminus layouts, not just for Minories. Assuming the loco spur side is the viewing side an obviously visible L bend perhaps with a Maybank style loco depot above a fiddle yard at the l/h throat end (viewers/public side) at whatever front length is deemed appropriate.  An L under a straight depot, perhaps.

 

Given that the usually allocated exhibition floor area is rectangular the dodge to use the extra space at the buffers end by keeping the over-roof and station building in a straight line but bend the tracks into an L. A further gain is that the loco uncoupling of incoming trains is then in an open top setting.

 

The big bonus is that should also gain an extra coach length into the train when it emerges from under the overall roof.

 

If it has been done I don't recall seeing an example.

 

Edited December 28, 2020 by john new

[t-b-g]

Nothing to do with Minories but two favourite through stations of mine, both with lots of terminating trains and operational potential are Marple and Mansfield (the Midland one).

 

In pre-group days Mansfield had well over 100 trains a day and only about 4 didn't either start or terminate there and all with 3 platforms.

[t-b-g]

8 minutes ago, john new said:

It has always surprised me that for exhibition use a U shaped cheat is not employed for terminus layout, not just for Minories. Assuming the loco spur side is the viewing side an obviously visible L bend perhaps with a Maybank style loco depot above a fiddle yard at the throat end at whatever front length is deemed appropriate.  An L under a straight depot, perhaps.

 

Given that the usually allocated exhibition floor area is rectangular the dodge to use the extra space at the buffers end by keeping the over-roof and station building in a straight line but bend the tracks into an L. A further gain is that the loco uncoupling of incoming trains is then in an open top setting.

 

The big bonus is that should also gain an extra coach length into the train when it emerges from under the overall roof.

 

If it has been done I don't recall seeing an example.

 

I have seen quite a few L or U shaped terminus layouts and have built a few L ones myself.

 

Making the whole frontage scenic and viewable is not a bad thing.

 

Any advantage of using the buffer stop end is minimal. If you have a board long enough to take a train, why not scenic it and add platforms? The only advantage I can think of is if you want to use really tight curves but that is something I try to avoid.

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, john new said:

It has always surprised me that for exhibition use a U shaped cheat is not employed for terminus layouts, not just for Minories. Assuming the loco spur side is the viewing side an obviously visible L bend perhaps with a Maybank style loco depot above a fiddle yard at the l/h throat end (viewers/public side) at whatever front length is deemed appropriate.  An L under a straight depot, perhaps.

 

Given that the usually allocated exhibition floor area is rectangular the dodge to use the extra space at the buffers end by keeping the over-roof and station building in a straight line but bend the tracks into an L. A further gain is that the loco uncoupling of incoming trains is then in an open top setting.

 

The big bonus is that should also gain an extra coach length into the train when it emerges from under the overall roof.

 

If it has been done I don't recall seeing an example.

 

Not a terminus but I've seen that trick used for a continuous layout where the tracks went under an overall roof and then promptly curved 180 degrees (possibly two 90 degree curves with a bit of straight between them) to return to the fiddle yard. I think it may have been the Oxford club who built it.

 

A small group of us did try using an L shaped fiddle yard on a fairly ambitious terminus to fiddle yard layout a few years ago but it was a bit of a disaster with a frustrating number of derailments.  I don't think it helped that the track was curved at a relatively tight radius as it crossed onto the perpendicular board that formed the L. That particular layout also suffered from being too big to put up completely in any of our rooms.

Edited December 28, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

Any advantage of using the buffer stop end is minimal. If you have a board long enough to take a train, why not scenic it and add platforms? The only advantage I can think of is if you want to use really tight curves but that is something I try to avoid.

 

It certainly works for models of through stations, such as Wibdenshaw where it gives the impression of a large station without filling the modelled scene with platforms, leaving plenty of room for the approach trackwork, which is arguably more interesting.  The front corner can of course have bays and sidings outside the trin shed to maintain interest for the viewer.  It doesn't seem like it would offer any advantage for a home layout as it assumes operators at the back.

 

Whether it is a useful technique for a terminus depends on the balance between visible platform length lost and overall length saved which is going to depend on things like acceptable (hidden) radius, carriage length and personal taste.  It would need to be investigated in detail.

 

[t-b-g]

12 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

It certainly works for models of through stations, such as Wibdenshaw where it gives the impression of a large station without filling the modelled scene with platforms, leaving plenty of room for the approach trackwork, which is arguably more interesting.  The front corner can of course have bays and sidings outside the trin shed to maintain interest for the viewer.  It doesn't seem like it would offer any advantage for a home layout as it assumes operators at the back.

 

Whether it is a useful technique for a terminus depends on the balance between visible platform length lost and overall length saved which is going to depend on things like acceptable (hidden) radius, carriage length and personal taste.  It would need to be investigated in detail.

 

 

I did investigate it for a terminus some time ago and decided that the disadvantages far outweighed any advantages.

 

I would agree that it can work really well on a through station, where the subterfuge can allow a train to disappear off stage back to a fiddle yard.

 

When the whole train has to stay on the board, not making it scenic just seems a bit of a waste.

 

I have designed and helped build a layout where one terminus ends in a road overbridge with the station building on the bridge and on the far side of the bridge are loco cassettes.

 

That works really well as a scenic fiddle yard. The locos can be turned off stage and when a platform is clear they can run back on scene and be attached back to the front of their trains. The stock doesn't need to move, so it need be no more than one loco length longer than a conventional fan of sidings fiddle yard. We don't pretend that it is a fully operational station, we just like having the trains on view in a scenic setting rather than in hidden sidings. The 140ft run between that and the other end helps the illusion that two terminus stations are not arranged throat to throat!

[Chris116]

I am sure that I saw a layout that had a Minories terminus with the third platform as a single track through line. I wish I could remember more details but I thought the idea worked well.

[St Enodoc]

8 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

a bit of a disaster with a frustrating number of derailments

 

8 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

That particular layout also suffered from being too big to put up completely in any of our rooms.

Possibly some cause and effect there David!

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

 

Possibly some cause and effect there David!

Oh definitely and that was the point I was making but I think the curved fiddle yard was a flawed concept in any case. Some backing moves into the fiddle yard were needed and you really need relatively easy curves- Ideally no less than three foot radius- to do that reliably with fairly long trains (we wanted to run seven or eight coach trains)

Edited December 29, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Zomboid]

22 hours ago, simon b said:

Had some time this morning so layed out the mk2 version, but reversed the viewing side so the goods area is at the rear. This seems to flow quite well, using a mix of medium and long radius points the scenic area is 8ft.

 

 

That looks very good, and from the less commonly shown side.

 

The only drawback I can see is getting access and a view of the freight side when canopies/ an overall roof is in position.

[simon b]

2 hours ago, Zomboid said:

That looks very good, and from the less commonly shown side.

 

The only drawback I can see is getting access and a view of the freight side when canopies/ an overall roof is in position.

 

I've been playing with idea of making the 2 goods warehouse sidings a higher level than the station, not only for interest but also to help with viewing. By using the nature of the kickback headshunt, I think I can get up to 15mm of height by the time the tracks level out at the warehouse point. West Kensington coal yard used a similar arrangement for trains to access the yard.  

 

As long as I don't bring the station roof/canopy's further out than the goods warehouse viewing shouldn't be too bad. Nothing set in stone yet though, I'm just posing things on a board at the moment to see what works.

 

[Pacific231G]

23 hours ago, Chris116 said:

I am sure that I saw a layout that had a Minories terminus with the third platform as a single track through line. I wish I could remember more details but I thought the idea worked well.

I think the single through platform probably is a good idea as It would discourage the layout from being worked as a roundy roundy which can be awfully tempting at exhibitions. One possibility is a line extending to off-stage quays or docks. They have obvious potential for all sorts of goods traffic and they weren't that uncommon in real termini though not perhaps running from a platfoem road, an extension out of the goods yard was more common.

 

The West Higland Railway did of course though have a single track version of Minories with that very feature 

 

The lochside platform at the original Fort William station carried on through a gate past the station building and McBrayne's  steamer pier to a quayside that  had a couple of sidings with a run round loop. It ended up just being used as a carriage siding - sometimes for just a couple of carriages needed to "strenghen" train to Glasgow- but at one time it was used to import grain for the local distilleries and I think handled some fish (probably before the Mallaig extension was built) . The platform road itself was protected by a "scotch block". a  heavy piece of timber hinged across one of the rails and normally padlocked shut.  This appears on the signal box diagram and you can see it in some photos but I don't think it was actually interlocked with the signaliing. 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Compound2632]

Now I'm thinking of Kingston upon Thames which was originally a terminus. The bay platform line remembers this, being on the original alignment, whereas the through lines to New Malden make a very Minories-like reverse curve. But the pointwork was un-Minories-ish.

[Northroader]

A location very much in this spirit is Portsmouth Town (Portsmouth and Southsea), where you have a terminus, which is a bit larger than Minories, which effectively dealt with local traffic and parcels, whilst the fancier trains climbed up behind, calling at an island platform and going on to terminate at Portsmouth Harbour. It needs to be put out in the rain and shrunk a bit before it would make a good model, but it does form a good basis.

[Zomboid]

I'd have thought that Ilkley whilst the line to Skipton was open, or indeed Springburn would be other good examples. Or Rock Ferry... Probably countless others around the network...

[Pacific231G]

4 hours ago, Northroader said:

A location very much in this spirit is Portsmouth Town (Portsmouth and Southsea), where you have a terminus, which is a bit larger than Minories, which effectively dealt with local traffic and parcels, whilst the fancier trains climbed up behind, calling at an island platform and going on to terminate at Portsmouth Harbour. It needs to be put out in the rain and shrunk a bit before it would make a good model, but it does form a good basis.

Portsmouth Harbour is itself also a good prototype - there's a 3mm scale version of it 'Portsea Harbour'. For termini wih a subsidiary through line there is also of Blackfriars in London (formerly St. Pauls) which was mainly terminus but with two through platforms serving the Thameslink line through the revived Snow Hill tunnel to the Widened Lines. ISTR that the through platforms were at a slightly lower level than the terminus platforms but the station was completely rebuilt between 2009-2012 and though it has terminating bays is nowadays more of a through station. 

[simon b]

Holborn viaduct has been visited before in this thread, so I'll suggest Richmond as another terminus with through lines.

 

On the subject of Blackfriars, I often thought modeling the inside of the trainshed itself would an interesting idea for a micro layout.

[KingEdwardII]

Richmond in west London is today peculiar in that it has a set of terminus platforms serving a double track line and a pair of through platforms serving a double track main line, but there is no connection whatever between the terminus platforms and the through platforms.

 

Unsurprisingly, it was not always like this and more varied modelling can be had with the track plan of the 1930s, where the lines are all connected and there are goods facilities on both the up and down sides of the station, long since built over. However, such a plan looks rather large to my eyes!

 

Mike.

[RJS1977]

3 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

Richmond in west London is today peculiar in that it has a set of terminus platforms serving a double track line and a pair of through platforms serving a double track main line, but there is no connection whatever between the terminus platforms and the through platforms.

 

 

Ealing Broadway's even more peculiar, as it's a through station on a four-track main line, and the terminus of two completely separate double track lines!