Jump to content
 

Theory of General Minories


Mike W2
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

One of my treasured documents is a copy of British Railway Journal No.74 - which contains the marvellous, long article "Post War Operations at Reading South" by John Copsey and Chris Turner. But I did not need that article to confirm that the picture above is definitely NOT at Reading South - where the the two island platforms were bereft of any buildings and the four platform roads went right up to the buffer stops not far in front of the terminal station building set at 90 degrees to the tracks. I would also note that the signage shown in the above photograph is more akin to that on the main platform (No. 4) of Reading General, than anything seen on the Southern Station - and those coaches were unlikely to be seen at the Southern Station.

 

The other things to remember are that when first built in 1849 there was only one platform road at the SER station - this station was rebuilt with a single island platform circa 1855/6, to create the station which was burnt out in a storm in 1859. The next station had a longer single island platform between 2 passenger roads and being built in brick lasted better - not being rebuilt with two island platforms, 4 roads, in 1896, by which time the LSWR had opened its lines through to Wokingham and there were a much larger number of trains every day.

 

If you look at my post at the top of the previous page you will find my planned - but never built - "Aldbrickham Southern" layout plan which is closely based on Reading South with the correct number of platforms and passenger roads.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Regards

Chris H

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
42 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

I suspect the photo is Platform 4 (now 7) of Reading General.

 

Definitely. The decorative brickwork of the surviving building (now the Three Guineas) can be seen and the carriages are Great Western.

Edited by Compound2632
Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to the conversation about Minories+1, the two plans are summarised here. They occupy the same space, with the same number of turnouts- the only real distinction being that dock/platform swap.

 

Plan A

image.png.ae3001622c786c31a8a02db5edd0d052.png

The first image, with three platforms and the dock makes me think of a suburban, rather than urban terminus, vis Greenwich Park:

 

image.png.af9edc92a93fabe9763692945e05bc01.png

image.png.59bc8df012d7c8421125d3b94804f2e5.png

 

The asymmetry of the platforms and the discrete dock sidiing I think would fit well in this context - the placement of the railway in a cutting backed by town houses, with both a signal box and road over bridge make scenic treatment simple and straight forward. The suburban nature however, makes interesting operation more challenging - one might consider nearby race-day traffic, etc. but as a branch terminus it's unlikely to get the variety of motive power an urban setting would provide. Greenwich Park, Bromley North and Hayes are all similar in appointment and show precious little variation in operation or stock.

 

Plan B

image.png.0dfda03ae5c62e1f9619cd84ca13ada2.png

 

In this plan the dock is extended to form part of a platform. @t-b-g does make an excellent point that the dock's use as a non-platform location to store stock is lost - but i am considering the operation of my prototype inspiration, where there are a number of operational kinks that can be adopted:

  1. The original station had distinct arrivals (P4, bottom) and departures (P1, top) platforms.
  2. The shorter platform siding (P3) had a carriage dock, leading to the cab stand on the other side of P4
  3. In later years the station effectively dedicated the two inner platforms (P2 and P3) for newspaper and parcels traffic.

None of these are particularly evident on the track plan apart from the departure-only P1, but I believe will make up for the unique look of the dock siding.

 

As an aside, assuming I proceed with Plan B - I am planning on buildng the station on the surface of standard laser-cut baseboards, the approach curve will drop down by 100mm with an offset baseboard connector to allow me to build up a viaduct. This means that in order to represent the station on a viaduct too, I will need to cut into the surface of the station baseboard and create a false floor inside to drop 'ground level'. There are transverse stiffeners that I will need to avoid, but my thoughts are that I can build buildings to slot over these areas, leaving alleys and yards below baseboard level. Does this sound like insanity?

 

Plan B with baseboard cutouts

image.png.25c9135ec3f708e6cdeb3971dd27edfe.png

 

The area around the lever frame would be left as-is, painted a matt dark grey/etc.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

Further to the conversation about Minories+1, the two plans are summarised here. They occupy the same space, with the same number of turnouts- the only real distinction being that dock/platform swap.

 

Plan A

image.png.ae3001622c786c31a8a02db5edd0d052.png

The first image, with three platforms and the dock makes me think of a suburban, rather than urban terminus, vis Greenwich Park:

 

image.png.af9edc92a93fabe9763692945e05bc01.png

image.png.59bc8df012d7c8421125d3b94804f2e5.png

 

The asymmetry of the platforms and the discrete dock sidiing I think would fit well in this context - the placement of the railway in a cutting backed by town houses, with both a signal box and road over bridge make scenic treatment simple and straight forward. The suburban nature however, makes interesting operation more challenging - one might consider nearby race-day traffic, etc. but as a branch terminus it's unlikely to get the variety of motive power an urban setting would provide. Greenwich Park, Bromley North and Hayes are all similar in appointment and show precious little variation in operation or stock.

 

Plan B

image.png.0dfda03ae5c62e1f9619cd84ca13ada2.png

 

In this plan the dock is extended to form part of a platform. @t-b-g does make an excellent point that the dock's use as a non-platform location to store stock is lost - but i am considering the operation of my prototype inspiration, where there are a number of operational kinks that can be adopted:

  1. The original station had distinct arrivals (P4, bottom) and departures (P1, top) platforms.
  2. The shorter platform siding (P3) had a carriage dock, leading to the cab stand on the other side of P4
  3. In later years the station effectively dedicated the two inner platforms (P2 and P3) for newspaper and parcels traffic.

None of these are particularly evident on the track plan apart from the departure-only P1, but I believe will make up for the unique look of the dock siding.

 

As an aside, assuming I proceed with Plan B - I am planning on buildng the station on the surface of standard laser-cut baseboards, the approach curve will drop down by 100mm with an offset baseboard connector to allow me to build up a viaduct. This means that in order to represent the station on a viaduct too, I will need to cut into the surface of the station baseboard and create a false floor inside to drop 'ground level'. There are transverse stiffeners that I will need to avoid, but my thoughts are that I can build buildings to slot over these areas, leaving alleys and yards below baseboard level. Does this sound like insanity?

 

Plan B with baseboard cutouts

image.png.25c9135ec3f708e6cdeb3971dd27edfe.png

 

The area around the lever frame would be left as-is, painted a matt dark grey/etc.

 

A friend of mine is already building Greenwich Park as a "what if it had stayed open into BR days" layout.

 

As for the plans, you can make the baseboards as complex or as simple as you like, as long as you are happy to accept the extra work the more complex variety brings to the project.

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

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.

 

Looking at it again more closely , I'm certain that you and others are right and it's definitely not Reading Southern station. Apart from anything else, the platform, as can be seen from the people seen between the two pillars,  is too wide and I think the second carriage is chocolate and cream. It might be Reading General but, if it really was a wartime image, the Ministry of Information were probably trying to obscure its location.

I have found the same image from the IWM who describe it as  "A PICTURE OF A SOUTHERN TOWN: LIFE IN WARTIME READING, BERKSHIRE, ENGLAND, UK, 1945 A busy scene on platform 1 at Reading railway station."

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205202162

 

You can clearly see the platform1 sign. 

2118047861_Reading(maybe)platform1sign.jpg.fe23427d665661bec375e1f781ebe495.jpg

However, when I knew Reading General (and Reading Southern) in the mid 1960s the main down platform was no. 4 with bays at the down end.

Did the GWR number platforms differently from British Railways or is this really somewhere completely different? I'm also not convinced this is a wartime image. Nobody is carrying a gas mask case (though by 1945 maybe few did) but, more significantly I can't see more than perhaps three or four men and no women in military uniform (including the American officer with his girl in the foreground which suggests it's not pre-war) Even after VE Day, this relative lack of uniforms seems very unlikely before the final end of the war. 

There are destination (or train name) boards above the carriage windows but, even looking at the zoomable image on the IWM site, I can only make out Paddington- on the nearest one so we know it's a down express on the GWR.

 

None of this of course reduces the value of Reading Southern .

 

 

 

 

Edited by Pacific231G
more information gleaned from IWM version and more about the civilian use of gasmasks during the war.
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold

Without wading through all 101 pages, has anyone done a signalling diagram for Minories?  As I’ve always liked the track plan, would love to do it in the East Midlands Trains era to go with what stock I’ve already got but with semaphore signalling, pretty much like a last outpost.

Edited by jools1959
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, CJF did one in 'Signalling for Model Railways', it's in this thread somewhere :)

 

It's pretty simple really -

3 platform homes + calling on arms on the inbound main line

3 platform starters

1 shunt signal on the loco spur

1 shunt signal on the outbound main line for shunting movements back into the station.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
10 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Yes, CJF did one in 'Signalling for Model Railways', it's in this thread somewhere :)

 

It's pretty simple really -

3 platform homes + calling on arms on the inbound main line

3 platform starters

1 shunt signal on the loco spur

1 shunt signal on the outbound main line for shunting movements back into the station.


I was thinking of using Dapol’s LMS style working signals, so I should be okay for the home and platform signals, not so the calling on and shunt signals as ideally I’d like them to work as per the prototype.

 

I don’t suppose you know roughly what page the signalling diagram is on?  Saves me wading through page after page, then loosing the will to live :banghead:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

The calling-on arms on the Home would only be necessary if you expect to send more than one train into a single platform at any time. 

Or a fresh loco going on to the head of the train.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:


But why would it be coming from the incoming Main?

If it was coming from the loco spur it wouldn't but if it was coming from off-stage it would. I think the CO arms would certainly be there but if you work the layout with just one turnover loco, as you say, they could be static.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

If it was coming from the loco spur it wouldn't but if it was coming from off-stage it would. I think the CO arms would certainly be there but if you work the layout with just one turnover loco, as you say, they could be static.


As it will be all units and short platforms, I assume that a calling on signal won’t be needed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Calling on arms for each route under the home signals, for up (arriving) trains, and a shunt signal for manoeuvres using the down line. Might even be a single c/o arm, but with a route indicator in the frame.

If operating on DC rather than DCC, the relevant home signal could energise the whole platform (including a break part way down) whereas the c/o arm would only provide power to the outer half of the platform. I think Peter Denny did this sort of thing on Buckingham, with respect to loco-isolating sections at the platform ends.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Calling on arms for each route under the home signals, for up (arriving) trains, and a shunt signal for manoeuvres using the down line. Might even be a single c/o arm, but with a route indicator in the frame.

If operating on DC rather than DCC, the relevant home signal could energise the whole platform (including a break part way down) whereas the c/o arm would only provide power to the outer half of the platform. I think Peter Denny did this sort of thing on Buckingham, with respect to loco-isolating sections at the platform ends.

 

You are quite right, the arrangements on Buckingham are like that and were discussed and illustrated recently.

 

What I don't know (and have been trying to work out only this last day or two) is how the layout was worked before all the subsidiary arms were there. When this version of Buckingham was built, there were just home and starter signals. Some time later, the signalling and the wiring was altered when all the calling on and shunt ahead arms were added.

 

I was going to signal and wire my new layout the same way as Buckingham but it would need 12 signals (2 x home, 2 x starters plus 4 subsidiary arms and 4 shunting discs) for what is a very simple track plan, so I was looking at the possibility of managing without the calling on and shunt ahead signals, to reduce the number of signals required to 8 (2 homes, 2 starters plus 4 shunt discs). All other shunting moves could be controlled directly by the signalman.

 

So I am presently deciding whether to go for the full set of signals and wire it like the present Buckingham or whether to go for the simplified version and wire it another way.

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

  • RMweb Premium

An ECS cab ride into a suburban terminus ( Cergy le Haut ) on the outskirts of Paris - there are 4 platforms, two terminating at the far sides and two apparently through roads that only leads to stabling sidings beyond but if you follow the pointwork as the train enters, the layout is almost like Minories.

 

https://youtu.be/4IhuAC0Z0-w?t=1608

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Welly said:

into a suburban terminus ( Cergy le Haut )

Aha - Cergy is one of the terminus stations on RER A in the far North-West of the Paris suburbs. I never got out that far on RER A so it is fascinating to see that part of the line. I suppose the 4 platforms are needed for the dense rush hour traffic - 9 trains per hour in the morning even in these Covid times.

 

One thing I noticed was the high prevelance of double slips, especially at the start of the journey.

 

Great video - thanks for posting the link.

 

Yours, Mike.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for alerting us all to this Welly. It's almost a lesson in French signalling practice and particularly interesting to see that on a line signalled for bi-directional working (indicated I think by the REV signs) . His expanation of VISA was also particularly interesting  (I think by fixed yellows he means non -flashing ones which are a less restrictive aspect)

The first part of the video is in the Acheres yard and slips do nowadays seem to be far more common in yard trackage (voies de service) than on running lines (voies principales) but I did notice a number of scissors crossovers on the main line. There are slips on the approaches to Paris St.Lazare that appear in one of Railtrotter's earlier videos that I'm watching now  but they may be confined to relatively low speeds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak64IaL1CtE

Is that also the case with Network Rail?

By the way. that second video includes a section running on the extreme left hand track leaving St. Lazare so giving an excellent view of the Batignolles Tranche (cutting) which has definite potential for a Minories approach.

Edited by Pacific231G
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • RMweb Gold
On 16/10/2013 at 22:02, Russ (mines a pint) said:

I was, having possibly found a space for a small-medium shelf layout, (rather than the apa box style thing I was looking at) looking at the Newcastle Haymarket type of plan with just a single island platform- but then with a 'minories' style approach so each platform could be accessed . I've also developed a bit of a thing for the old first generation DMU's despite despising them back in the day, :)

 

The original Newcastle Haymarket was a single line in/out but I felt even in the direst days of rationalisation that wasn't prototypical for an urban location, though I do believe right at the end of Bradford F. Sq before the new station was built there were two turnouts back to back with effectively albeit very short single line between the two turnouts .

 

In its rebuilt version there was double track but each platform was not accessible from each line.

 

So atm I'm thinking of taking the simple & (importantly narrow board width you could get) with the 2 platform island, but the flexibility and slightly less boring operation of having both platforms being accessible from a double track approach ? A scissors crossover would undoubtedly work for this but I doubt I could build one.

Weymouth, current format, is double track, points into single line, then splits again into three platforms.

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...