Theory of General Minories

[Nearholmer]

4 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

There are quite a few, Kevin

Probably initially my Sussex bias that caught me out: I couldn’t find Birlstone (The Valley of Fear), or Lamberley (The Sussex Vampire), then went off looking for The Grimpen Mire where that ought to be, and somehow missed it.

 

I think they’ve got Mugsborough (Hastings) too far west, and expected to find Sanditon at Eastbourne, rather than Brighton/Hove, and the Eastbourne from a Manga book was a completely new one on me.

 

Others literary Sussex ones I couldn’t see:

 

- Iping (No, cut that, Iping is a real place, in a fictional story)

- Otwell

- Salthaven

- Old Winklesea

- Upper Cassington

- Hartwarp

 

There are more, which just shows how crowded with falsity the place is.

 

Anyone know why the Trumpton villages got put in Sussex?

 

Hugely entertaining!

 

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Nearholmer

[DK123GWR]

I find the location of Titfield interesting. Based on the comments for Mossy Bottom being in South Gloucestershire or Wiltshire (the Shaun the Sheep farm (which the author of the Wikipedia article believes is in the North - which would make sense given that Wallace and Gromit is set in Wigan) they must have placed it somewhere in the Marshfield/Colerne area. That would place Mallingford as Bath, and based on the relative positions of Mallingford (assumed to be Bath), Melchester (Salisbury), and Corinium (presumably Cirencester, since that was its Roman name) Titfield must be near Devizes. None of this seems to fit naturally with the national network, given half of the real line from Bath to Devizes is still open - and not really a branch line. Wouldn't it have made more sense to place it somewhere in Somerset (like the filming location), as a small branch off of one of the many other small (and now closed) branches in that area?

[t-b-g]

Well, we made 100 pages on layout design, mostly based on Minories, before it dissolved into a discussion about whether places that don't exist are marked correctly on a map. 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

13 hours ago, t-b-g said:

Well, we made 100 pages on layout design, mostly based on Minories, before it dissolved into a discussion about whether places that don't exist are marked correctly on a map. 

Well done all!
 

I note there is apparently no imagination here on the Wirral.  Mind you, I’ve often thought about my life since I moved here that you couldn’t make it up…

 

Happy modelling - or just musing, Keith.

[Pacific231G]

On 02/12/2021 at 20:19, t-b-g said:

Well, we made 100 pages on layout design, mostly based on Minories, before it dissolved into a discussion about whether places that don't exist are marked correctly on a map. 

Ahh but how many of those imaginary places, apart from one or two on the Isle of Sodor, could support a compact main line terminus with three platforms? 

 

Going back to that, something I'm conscious of in CJF's original plan was the road overbridge that effectively concealed how short the station really was (See Geoff Ashdowns Tower Pier for visual evidence of how effective this can be added to by a short overall roof) but I've not seen many other of the many Minories based (or Minories inspired) layouts that have done this. Has anyone seen other examples of this technique, perhaps using other view blockers, and how effective have they been?

 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

Ahh but how many of those imaginary places, apart from one or two on the Isle of Sodor, could support a compact main line terminus with three platforms? 

 

Going back to that, something I'm conscious of in CJF's original plan was the road overbridge that effectively concealed how short the station really was (See Geoff Ashdowns Tower Pier for visual evidence of how effective this can be added to by a short overall roof) but I've not seen many other of the many Minories based (or Minories inspired) layouts that have done this. Has anyone seen other examples of this technique, perhaps using other view blockers, and how effective have they been?

 

 

I am sure that I have seen one or two with an overbridge but I am not sure I can recall the actual examples. I would possibly suggest Bradfield Gloucester Square, which I always thought had a Minories feel to it.

 

I have a rule that I use when designing layouts that involves breaking the design into 4ft viewing sections (or thereabouts). I once read somewhere that when you are standing at normal viewing distance from a layout, the field of vision is about 4ft from side to side. So if you have two or more 4ft sections that are pretty much identical, they don't really add much as you can stand in front of one bit or another and basically have the same view. So I try to make each 4ft section of the design something that is not the same as the section next door.

 

With Minories, that happens almost automatically as you have roughly 4ft of platforms and 4ft of station throat. It may even be one of the reasons why I like the design so much. It fits in with my own ideas on how to design a layout very well indeed. Having a bridge to divide them does emphasise the separation of the two different views. I am plotting an overbridge on my new mini Minories. I haven't decided whether to make it a footbridge carrying a right of way footpath over the station, which could be a nice slim lattice, or to have a more substantial road bridge, which would give a possible road access to my one goods siding via a ramp. I am leaning towards the first option as I have a soft spot for lattice footbridges!   

[Welly]

On 02/12/2021 at 08:48, Lacathedrale said:

Oh come now, lads: I've got baseboards ordered, some stock kits to hand, defined layout plan, solid operational cues, etc.  - I would have thought that's making a start!

 

As we're well and truly beyond the stage of the Theory of Minories, I will stop polluting this thread with my specific plans and ideas and I'll leave that to a seperate layout thread. Thank you all, you're such a wonderful group to talk to about this stuff.

 

In continuing the Minories-related content at least obliquely, with relation to setting a layout somewhere, I remember seeing this map and thought it would be an interesting prompt for layouts, routes and connections:

The imgur image cannot be enlarged to be read easily but I found this http://assets.londonist.com/uploads/2019/12/britainforlondonist20dec2019.jpg

[john new]

There is a new, large, world atlas of Imaginary Places published. I saw it in Waterstones in York, my wife has bought me it for Christmas and put it away for wrapping so cannot say much more for now.

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, john new said:

There is a new, large, world atlas of Imaginary Places published. I saw it in Waterstones in York, my wife has bought me it for Christmas and put it away for wrapping so cannot say much more for now.

Thanks. That's a likely Christmas present for someone I know. 

[Welly]

2 hours ago, john new said:

There is a new, large, world atlas of Imaginary Places published. I saw it in Waterstones in York, my wife has bought me it for Christmas and put it away for wrapping so cannot say much more for now.

I've just gone and bought a copy for my Dad to wrap for me! Nice one!

[cheesysmith]

On 02/12/2021 at 10:18, Andy Kirkham said:

 

A larger scale version is here http://assets.londonist.com/uploads/2019/12/britainforlondonist20dec2019.jpg

and an index of places https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1djax783rILHf56Mue-huoVNkAgTL5mULyiBBY_AR5nU/edit#gid=0

 

The compilers are evidently quite railway-aware. Not only is Sodor included, but also Craigshire, and several locations I'm not familiar with which are linked to a "Noted model railway"

Craigcorrie (town)

Creag Dhubh (natural feature)

Dunalistair (town)

Eaton Gomery (town)

Inverlochan (town)

The works of LTC Rolt are extensively referenced.

 

Just looking at that map and not all the places are fictional. There are two i found that are real and in roughly the right places. They are Rotherwood and royston vasey (but the locals call it stocksbridge). 

[woodenhead]

I thought Royston Vasey was Glossop?

[Regularity]

8 hours ago, woodenhead said:

I thought Royston Vasey was Glossop?

Nah. Roy “Chubby” Brown…

 

(I thought it was filmed in Hadfield.)

[Lacathedrale]

Just a quick post of a small tweak to my interpretation of a Pre-Group Minories: to catch up from the original design: the loco spur has sprouted a dock platform, and now that dock platform has grown into a departure-only road as an carry-over from an earlier railway period:

 

 

Functionally the same, but two pairs of running lines looks quite impressive to me and can host an overall roof with a central support

Edited December 13, 2021 by Lacathedrale

[scottystitch]

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

Just a quick post of a small tweak to my interpretation of a Pre-Group Minories: to catch up from the original design: the loco spur has sprouted a dock platform, and now that dock platform has grown into a departure-only road as an carry-over from an earlier railway period:

 

 

Functionally the same, but two pairs of running lines looks quite impressive to me and can host an overall roof with a central support

For added interest, you could split the station in two, with the top platforms operated by one company, the bottom two operated by another.

 

A second loco loco spur off an additional turnout and above "Low building roof, alleys, etc."  It would be an interesting talking point to have two companies using segregated platforms and facilities.

 

Was it Moorgate that was originally operated like that?

 

Best

 

Scott.

Edited December 13, 2021 by scottystitch

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

Just a quick post of a small tweak to my interpretation of a Pre-Group Minories: to catch up from the original design: the loco spur has sprouted a dock platform, and now that dock platform has grown into a departure-only road as an carry-over from an earlier railway period:

 

 

Functionally the same, but two pairs of running lines looks quite impressive to me and can host an overall roof with a central support

 

Except that it isn't functionally the same. You have lost the feature that you had added to Minories, which gave you the most opportunity to make the operation something other than train arrives, train leaves or train shunts to another platform. Having somewhere to hold a few vans, horseboxes or carriage trucks and to be able to add or remove them from trains was the difference, to me, between interesting operation and dull operation.

 

Adding an extra platform gives you more possible moves that are just the same as all the other moves. The loading dock gave you something that was different and added lots of shunting opportunities that this change takes away.

[Lacathedrale]

The dock did strike me as a catalyst for interesting operations and I didn't fully consider how its transmutation to a platform would have a negative effect - thank you! Part of the reason for me calling off the 'full HV' plan was that there were two extra platforms that added nothing operationally but would have increased both the length and width of the layout exponentially.

 

@scottystitch you're quite right that Moorgate had one platform per company before it was rebuilt - but I think Tony does make a very good point.

 

[RJS1977]

15 hours ago, scottystitch said:

For added interest, you could split the station in two, with the top platforms operated by one company, the bottom two operated by another.

 

A second loco loco spur off an additional turnout and above "Low building roof, alleys, etc."  It would be an interesting talking point to have two companies using segregated platforms and facilities.

 

Was it Moorgate that was originally operated like that?

 

Best

 

Scott.

 

I don't know about Moorgate, but Victoria was, as was Manchester London Road.

[Compound2632]

Moorgate. One platform, one loco spur, one water column, and one approach crossover, per company:

 

 

[crop from Midland Railway Study Centre Item 20628, dated April 1912 revised June 1916.]

[john new]

IIRC Reading was also split, at least in BR days between WR and 3rd rail SR and Manchester Pic? was split 1500v DC for Sheffield and 25kv.for Crewe.

[woodenhead]

In Manchester LNWR would pass through Victoria on their way to Exchange, with L&Y services passing Exchange to get to Victoria, the difference being the through lines for Victoria were through the station, for Exchange by the station.

 

The Great Western also ran services into Manchester Exchange, offering a chance for a view of LNWR, LYR and GWR locomotives from the western platform ends of Exchange.

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, john new said:

IIRC Reading was also split, at least in BR days between WR and 3rd rail SR 

 

There were two completely separate stations, Reading General and Reading Southern. When the latter closed, a new terminal island platform was constructed alongside the eastern end of General's down main platform. 

 

One day sometime in the 1860s news spread through the town that the station was on fire. There was considerable rejoicing, until it was established that it was not the Great Western but the South Eastern station that was going up in flames.

 

 

[Regularity]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

One day sometime in the 1860s news spread through the town that the station was on fire.

Speaking from memory, Stephen?

[Pacific231G]

9 hours ago, john new said:

IIRC Reading was also split, at least in BR days between WR and 3rd rail SR and Manchester Pic? was split 1500v DC for Sheffield and 25kv.for Crewe.

Reading Southern, which adjoined the eastern end of Reading General, was a very attractive compact terminus with two Island platforms (for platform faces) and definitely worthy of consideration in a Minories context.

There are plenty of images of it online including here

http://disused-stations.org.uk/r/reading_southern/index.shtml

and this 1945 wartime image of it very crowded.

 

I used it a few times on shedbashing trips to the Southern from Oxford when it was a lot quieter than this and it did make a very nice contrast to Reading General. Unfortunately, I left my small case on a train there once and it never turned up.

[Nearholmer]

Are you sure that photo is of the southern station? It’s just that the canopy structure doesn’t ring a bell, and I’m not sure about the signage either.