Theory of General Minories

[Flying Pig]

7 hours ago, Zomboid said:

There's the actual LNWR one to use as inspiration too of course.

 

Oxford Rewley Road is on Disused Stations here and on the SRS site here (search the page for Oford LMS as unfortunately a direct link to the file will probably be blocked).  I think a compact model could be worked out but it wouldn't be Minories as the requirements are quite different.  Buckingham GC is perhaps closer to Rewley Road than it is to Minories.

[t-b-g]

8 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Oxford Rewley Road is on Disused Stations here and on the SRS site here (search the page for Oford LMS as unfortunately a direct link to the file will probably be blocked).  I think a compact model could be worked out but it wouldn't be Minories as the requirements are quite different.  Buckingham GC is perhaps closer to Rewley Road than it is to Minories.

 

I don't really see much similarity between Buckingham and Rewley Road. 4 platforms rather than 2 and a station throat that is pretty much a scissors plus a 3 way and a slip on an S bend. It isn't much like a Minories either as it uses no "standard" LH or RH points in the approach and has 4 platforms rather than 3 and you can only arrive in 3 of them but you can depart from all 4.

 

I took an overhead view of the pointwork at the Buckingham throat as I still look at it and can't easily see how it was done. Even though I have operated it for 10 years now, I am still amazed at the design and the complexity and how a throat for such a station could be done in around 24" length.

 

If anybody wants a compact throat, even more compact than Minories and with even greater flexibility, then I give you Buckingham!

 

The tracks above and below the tank loco are Pl 1 and 2. The track from the bottom left line on the single slip is the goods yard exit and the Y point to the left of the slip splits for Pl 3 and 4.

 

[Pacific231G]

8 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Oxford Rewley Road is on Disused Stations here and on the SRS site here (search the page for Oford LMS as unfortunately a direct link to the file will probably be blocked).  I think a compact model could be worked out but it wouldn't be Minories as the requirements are quite different.  Buckingham GC is perhaps closer to Rewley Road than it is to Minories.

And the actual station building is now the main building at Quainton Road. It used the same prefabricated metal frame system of construction as the  Crystal Palace so has an importance in terms of architecture. I used to pass it whenever I went to of from Oxford Station but it was a tyre depot then though I can remember the yard in use - entirely for coal AFAIR. I don't think there was ever a huge variety of passenger trains on the "Varsity" line and trains were mainly stoppers. AFAIK It only ever had a single platform with two faces so not dissimilar from the Buckinghamshire Railway's other terminus at Banbury Merton Street though the varsity line was double track.

In terms of suitable urban secondary termini Reading Southern and the LSWR's Windsor & Eaton Riverside probably come closer.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Pacific231G

[Nearholmer]

Yes, I wasn’t suggesting any of these secondary city/town termini for direct copying, merely as inspiration. They tended to be slow-paced in reality, and the trains a bit samey, so some creativity needed, unless you like very under-used stations for their own qualities.

[St Enodoc]

10 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Oxford Rewley Road is on Disused Stations here and on the SRS site here (search the page for Oford LMS as unfortunately a direct link to the file will probably be blocked).  I think a compact model could be worked out but it wouldn't be Minories as the requirements are quite different.  Buckingham GC is perhaps closer to Rewley Road than it is to Minories.

Oxford MRS had a very nice model of Rewley Road back in the 1970s. See Railway Modeller 11/76. 10/87 and 9/12.

[Flying Pig]

27 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Oxford MRS had a very nice model of Rewley Road back in the 1970s. See Railway Modeller 11/76. 10/87 and 9/12.

 

Yes I remember it well. 

[KingEdwardII]

6 hours ago, t-b-g said:

and can't easily see how it was done

Yes, it is a masterpiece of compression, which is perhaps also typical of the entrances to larger urban stations generally, where there is a need to go from a few running lines to a large number of platforms in a short distance, dictated by the available land.

 

That looks to be at the pinnacle of the art of hand made trackwork but it must also require a good deal of complex interlocking to avoid collisions.

 

The rats nest of wiring at the bottom of your picture gives a hint at some of the complexity, I think.

 

Yours, Mike.

[SZ]

 

14 hours ago, t-b-g said:

If anybody wants a compact throat, even more compact than Minories and with even greater flexibility, then I give you Buckingham!

 

The tracks above and below the tank loco are Pl 1 and 2. The track from the bottom left line on the single slip is the goods yard exit and the Y point to the left of the slip splits for Pl 3 and 4.

 

 

It's effectively one giant double slip, looks like some sort of analogue of the double parallelogram 'Bastille' version of Minories

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2021 by SZ

[t-b-g]

9 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

Yes, it is a masterpiece of compression, which is perhaps also typical of the entrances to larger urban stations generally, where there is a need to go from a few running lines to a large number of platforms in a short distance, dictated by the available land.

 

That looks to be at the pinnacle of the art of hand made trackwork but it must also require a good deal of complex interlocking to avoid collisions.

 

The rats nest of wiring at the bottom of your picture gives a hint at some of the complexity, I think.

 

Yours, Mike.

 

There is no interlocking at all. The wiring system is as clever, if not more clever, than the track layout.

 

The red levers in the frame are for signals and the black ones for points. The main lines through the crossing are permanently live and both connected to the same controller at Buckingham. The departure line at the top is transferred to the Grandborough Junction controller by pulling the advanced starter signal and the platforms are connected to the Buckingham controller by clearing the home signals (if the whole platform is clear up to the buffers) If the train is to depart, the starter signals connect about 75% of the platform to the Grandborough controller but leave the loco trapped at the buffers isolated. Shunting into or out of the platforms is achieved by pulling calling on or shunt ahead arms, both of which attach the Buckingham Controller to the 75%, allowing a shunter to remove stock without moving the loco which brought the train in.

 

The wires on view are the total wiring for the whole station. From there, each wire goes down through the baseboard and up to a rail. So there is nothing to go wrong under the baseboard in terms of wiring.

 

I did do a little video presentation on the control systems which was part of a virtual show for both the EMGS and the Scalefour Society. If anybody is interested this should link you to it:

 

 

A wiring diagram showing the various signals attached to one of the platforms is also attached.

[5BarVT]

Thank you very much for putting this up.  That control system is very clever and yet so simple to operate.

As said on the video, what more could you want.

Paul.

[Pacific231G]

10 hours ago, SZ said:

 

 

It's effectively one giant double slip, looks like some sort of analogue of the double parallelogram 'Bastille' version of Minories

 

 

 

I'm not sure what's meant by the "Bastille" version of Minoties. The point about Bastille itself (after its 1920s rationalisation)  is that it allowed for simultaneous inbound and outbound movements with any two of the five platforms, in an exceptionally short length, by using turnouts usually only used for sidings  (Tg.016 about a no 6 crossing and,  at 1:87 scale, about the same length as a Streamline large radius turnout ) .  The genius was to achieve that with a minimum of pointwork and without a single reverse curve thus enabling long bogie coaches to be used. . 

If you don't need that degree of simultaneous working then the minimum length to connect two or three platforms to a double track line using simple turnouts is the equivalent of the length of  four turnouts and five lengths for four or five platforms. Those lengths do increase if you require simultaneous inbound and outbound movements. (A slip can be the equivalent of two back to back turnouts in rather less length but the basic rule still applies) but this four track layout based on Bastille (simplified to not include the local sub-shed) only requires six points lengths and is entirely made up of simple left and right hand turnouts (drawn in this plan with Medium radius Streamline) .

 

For comparison, below  is the actual layout of pointwork in the real Bastille terminus (though drawn with medium radius points so not to scale) with five platform roads, a releasing road above platform 1 (accessed at the buffer end by a traverser) and a three road loco shed.

They did use one single slip at the end of the throat  just to get the geometry right to enter the viaduct but, with a terminus that was going to be so intensively used they clearly wanted to stick to simple pointwork as you can see what any points failure would do to operations.

 

 

 

 

For as  intensive a rush hour suburban service as possible, trains departed from each platform in turn from five to one so that new trains could arrive to replace them one by one so, very soon after the last train had departed from platform one, the enxt cycle of departures could begin in what was actually a very repetitive process.  All complicated of course by getting engines from arriving trains onto the other end  of other trains for departure.  

 

Edited August 29, 2021 by Pacific231G

[t-b-g]

10 hours ago, 5BarVT said:

Thank you very much for putting this up.  That control system is very clever and yet so simple to operate.

As said on the video, what more could you want.

Paul.

 

It is the best control system I have ever seen. Although it is an old layout, Buckingham has many features that we can still learn from. My new mini Minories inspired layout will have that sort of control system. The only difference is that I will be using a lever frame either from MSE or from the S4 Society kits and modern micro switches rather than homemade wipers. 

[Izzy]

On 27/08/2021 at 23:53, t-b-g said:

I took an overhead view of the pointwork at the Buckingham throat as I still look at it and can't easily see how it was done. Even though I have operated it for 10 years now, I am still amazed at the design and the complexity and how a throat for such a station could be done in around 24" length.

 

Hand drawn and hand built is I think the basic answer. Done in what would be considered perhaps the old way now Templot is here, but normal to many such as myself. I know that sounds obvious, but that the planing angles of the blades and the V’s didn’t follow any set size makes a big difference I would suggest. Draw out the plain tracks and overlay with curves where the points are needed. All very much ‘old school’ now. Look at the way the lower slip blades pivot and are shaped. Clever and practical but might be frowned upon today by some as not looking or following real life practice.   Following prototype practice, as Peter Denny did with almost everything I think, but not constrained by it. That had what has always drawn me to the Buckingham branch and his layouts. That they looked real.

[Nearholmer]

If you look at real pre-grouping trackwork, a lot of the older stuff was rather ‘designed for the site’, and ‘craftsman made’, not at all the repetitive geometry that is being talked about. Turnout angles were noticeably sharp, but Locos were a lot shorter in the wheelbase, bogie vehicles shorter, and, especially in places like station throats, speeds were low, so it all worked fine.

 

I’m not sure when big PADs became the norm, possibly not until post-1900, and possibly never on the small companies.

 

In short, the Denny approach was possibly closer to reality of the times than we give credit for (although not of the southern GC, which was a brand new Railway at the time!).

Edited August 29, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Harlequin]

Getting back to Minories, remember that it was specifically designed to use the modular RTP track parts that were available at the time.

And part of it's genius is that it uses those parts so well in such a small space.

In that context, hand made trackwork is a bit of diversion and would almost make the plan too easy!

 

Edited August 29, 2021 by Harlequin

[t-b-g]

3 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Getting back to Minories, remember that it was specifically designed to use the modular RTP track parts that were available at the time.

And part of it's genius is that it uses those parts so well in such a small space.

In that context, hand made trackwork is a bit of diversion and would almost make the plan almost too easy!

 

 

You are quite right and looking at such things as Buckingham is very much a diversion. I mainly included it as a possible way forward for those wanting a shorter station throat allowing for longer platforms and longer trains.

 

Having worked in EM for many years, the new EMGS ready to lay points do offer an opportunity to create a Minories using ready to lay track and I am sure somebody must be doing one somewhere but being a bit of a p.way enthusiast I like building points to real life company practices, so it probably won't be me.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

Hand drawn and hand built is I think the basic answer. Done in what would be considered perhaps the old way now Templot is here, but normal to many such as myself. I know that sounds obvious, but that the planing angles of the blades and the V’s didn’t follow any set size makes a big difference I would suggest. Draw out the plain tracks and overlay with curves where the points are needed. All very much ‘old school’ now. Look at the way the lower slip blades pivot and are shaped. Clever and practical but might be frowned upon today by some as not looking or following real life practice.   Following prototype practice, as Peter Denny did with almost everything I think, but not constrained by it. That had what has always drawn me to the Buckingham branch and his layouts. That they looked real.

 

When I say that I have found it difficult to work out how he did it, the reason is because I have tried to draw it out for my own personal interest, using pencil and paper and card curved templates cut to different radii. I have Peter Denny's original ones which he used plus some I made for myself as his are a bit fragile now.

 

I had 3 or 4 attempts and realised that almost every element requires absolutely precise positioning. If one bit is an inch out, it spoils the whole thing. I am a very basic Templot user and couldn't attempt anything like that but I have a good friend who is a bit of a whizz on it. I will set him it to draw out as an exercise one day when he has some spare time.

 

Mind you, even Peter Denny didn't get it perfect. It really shouldn't work and would never have been built like that by the real railways! If you look closely, a couple of crossing noses don't have check rails exactly opposite where they are. Most of the time it is hidden under the overbridge and the signal box, so the dodgy check rails are well hidden.

 

I have now given away a previously secret Buckingham "dodge".

 

Another is that if you are shunting stock between platforms 2,3 and 4 you must always use the down (arrival) line for the shunt. If you propel stock from the departure line into those 3, the S bend through the crossings is too severe and you get buffer locking. 

[Compound2632]

27 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

Another is that if you are shunting stock between platforms 2,3 and 4 you must always use the down (arrival) line for the shunt. 

 

... which is, dare I say it, unprototypical - surely the departure line would normally be used, in the absence of some sort of intermediate line? But rest assured, my enjoyment of Buckingham has not been unduly soured.

[t-b-g]

9 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

... which is, dare I say it, unprototypical - surely the departure line would normally be used, in the absence of some sort of intermediate line? But rest assured, my enjoyment of Buckingham has not been unduly soured.

 

I am not so sure. The shunt is protected by an outer home signal and while you are shunting stock between platforms it leaves the up line clear for departures, obviously depending on which platforms are involved. You can depart from platforms 1 or 2  while shunting between 3 and 4, or you can depart from 1 while shunting any of the other 3. It does happen regularly too. Once you have given the Grandborough operator the signals and the route, you ignore the departing train and you can shunt or make other moves elsewhere at Buckingham. A shunt on the up line blocks pretty much everything else.

 

I am in the shed now so here is a gratuitous photo of the layout this morning. In the timetable it is early morning and the rush hour is about to start. There are trains in all 4 platforms, from left to right an Aylesbury all stations slow train, the Leighton Buzzard branch train, a Marylebone stopper and the Marylebone non stop express.

 

[Compound2632]

I take my remark back. Whatever secret dodges there may be, Buckingham never fails to look railway-like, which is after all the ultimate test.

[SZ]

13 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

I'm not sure what's meant by the "Bastille" version of Minories

 

A Minories based upon the concept for Bastille (posted elsewhere in this thread, that looked something like this)

 

 

The stacked parallelograms give maximum separation between arrivals and departures whereas Buckingham seems to give minimal separation, with just about everything conflicting except departures platform 1 and 2

 

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2021 by SZ

[t-b-g]

46 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I take my remark back. Whatever secret dodges there may be, Buckingham never fails to look railway-like, which is after all the ultimate test.

 

One of the things I like about it is that you gradually learn that everything was done for a reason and usually a good one! I am still learning all the little tricks now.

 

Most trains are not shunted from one platform to another but when they are, it is always for a sensible operating reason.

 

You can't arrive in Pl 1 and only Pl 1 and 2 are long enough for the 5 coach express set. So it arrives in 2 and is always shunted to 1. That releases the train loco to go to shed. If you didn't shunt it and just backed another loco on to take it out, the two locos plus 5 carriages would be too long and the second loco would foul the pointwork and be beyond the starter signal and therefore not isolated.

 

If Pl 2, 3 and 4 are all occupied and the next move is an arrival, a set gets shunted to Pl 1.

 

The one which gets the most shunting is the slip coach train. That arrives as either a 4 car set or a 3 car express plus the slip coach worked round separately as it has passengers for Grandborough and Bourton Halt and needs re-assembling in the correct order with the slip coach at the back of the departing train, so it can be dropped again at Grandborough.

 

Operating the station pilot as it fusses about with the slip coach while an express sets off from Platforms 1 or 2 looks really good.

 

It is really a wonderful layout to have and to be able to operate whenever I want. I sometimes wonder whether building my own layouts is worth bothering with when I have that beauty to run but I have always enjoyed making things and so although I will not ever build anything that is as much fun to operate as Buckingham, I still get lots of pleasure from the design and construction side of things and I can, hopefully one day, go back to taking my own layouts onto the exhibition circuit, where Buckingham will never be able to go.  

 

 

[Pacific231G]

52 minutes ago, SZ said:

 

A Minories based upon the concept for Bastille (posted elsewhere in this thread, that looked something like this)

 

 

The stacked parallelograms give maximum separation between arrivals and departures whereas Buckingham seems to give minimal separation, with just about everything conflicting except departures platform 1 and 2

 

 

 

 

OK, shown like that it makes more sense and I think it may have been me that posted it- though not that actual drawing- as it's essentially the theoretical track plan for an idealised commuter terminus that The CF de l'Est's traffic engineers included in a 1931 paper describing how they got 20-25% more rush hours trains in and out of Bastille within its existing (and very tight) enveope during the roaring twenties.

 

That would work for MUs or push pull trains but their projected plan for the six suburban platforms of the Gare de l'Est added a third track for the "evolutions" of engines getting from trains they'd brought in (usually after these had departed behind another loco) to the next train they were taking out. 

I don't  know whether Gare de l'Est was ever rationalised exactly like this but they put a lot of work into establishing the theory of how such a terminus could be optimised (a lot of that down to the "flighting" of trains to their various destinations down the line. 

 

[Zomboid]

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I take my remark back. Whatever secret dodges there may be, Buckingham never fails to look railway-like, which is after all the ultimate test

I think the magic of Buckingham is because it was built to be an actual railway, and everything it does is a real railway thing.

 

There are a few unusual features, the kickback goods is vastly more common in a model than it ever was in reality, but those are perfectly forgivable...

[RobinofLoxley]

Pacific231G, thanks for posting your bastille track plans. I didnt want to quote the post due to its size, just to say I spent several hours today trying to work out if i could incorporate the 4-track version into my own layout; I cant as even with a slip replacing back to back points the 'turning circle' of the plan is too large. The beauty of it is that it allows parallel arrival and departures from any platform, which is much more flexible than my own which is restricted to 1/2 in 3/4 out if that makes sense. Otherwise its a complete redesign of half the layout, which tbh I am thinking about.