Theory of General Minories

[clecklewyke]

Clecklewyke does refer to the Lancashire and Yorkshire side of the station, which, we read, was worked independently of the Great Northern side. Even on the Great Northern side, how many restaurant car expresses did the station handle per day?

 

Yes, the article was purely about the L&Y side. I don't know much about the GN side but the GNR did develop quite an extensive network of local lines in the West Riding (mostly gone, replaced by trams then buses). The crack train from Bradford Exchange GN side was its portion of the Yorkshire Pullman - two Pullman cars pulled by a scruffy tank engine - my type of train which I faithfully reproduce on Bradford North Western and Clive does on Sheffield Exchange.

 

Ian

[tc]

Hmmm, that would mean that the EM gauge "Minories GN" built as a 50th anniversary tribute by Tom Cunnington and others is no longer a  Minories as it has a hidden traverser beyond the original end between platforms 1&2. 

.  

Er, no it doesn't. The P4 Moor Street at DEMU back in 2007 (which was part of the Minories inspired competition) did have the traverser at the end of the platforms as the original did.

 

Minories GN extends under the station building as if the line had a link through to the Southend line, which had been truncated. But at the moment it's simply two bits of track and a piece of MDF which occasionally destroys couplings. So upon arrival the train engine uncouples and waits, whilst a turnaround loco drops onto its tail. When the train has departed, the loco is released and either drops onto the back of the following loco hauled set, or goes to the loco spur at the end of platform 1. There should only be one turnaround loco at a time; Moorgate has its loco spurs in a slightly different but more efficient arrangement avoiding a further reversing of the loco.

 

When operated correctly the 'departure' loco does pause an inch or so away from the stock and then slowly buffer up to the coaches to avoid jolting. There should then always be another move before the train departs, to replicate the time for the brake test to be completed. As we operate Minories now, the rush hour never finishes so there is always a turnaround loco in the station, but at Moorgate it would run light at the ends of the peaks from and to Finsbury Park.

 

The traverser on Minories is the fiddle yard - a 6 road 5' long unit that is very space efficient, but does restrict operation and of course inevitably stock now exceeds the number of roads.

 

The reason for the line extending under the station building and the concept of an north - east through line linking the GN to the LTS is cock up rather than design. The curve of the tracks at the country end of platforms 1 and 2 meant that the Kadees wouldn't couple up, so I simply extended the line by 8 inches to create an almost straight section of track to couple up on, and on which the station building sits. However if all goes well over the next few weeks, we'll have non-passenger trains running through the station in the off peaks in time for Tolworth Showtrain and Wakefield in November. I'm currently knitting together a new control panel for the new 10 road fiddle yard....

 

Tom

[Pacific231G]

Er, no it doesn't. The P4 Moor Street at DEMU back in 2007 (which was part of the Minories inspired competition) did have the traverser at the end of the platforms as the original did.

 

Minories GN extends under the station building as if the line had a link through to the Southend line, which had been truncated. But at the moment it's simply two bits of track and a piece of MDF which occasionally destroys couplings. So upon arrival the train engine uncouples and waits, whilst a turnaround loco drops onto its tail. When the train has departed, the loco is released and either drops onto the back of the following loco hauled set, or goes to the loco spur at the end of platform 1. There should only be one turnaround loco at a time; Moorgate has its loco spurs in a slightly different but more efficient arrangement avoiding a further reversing of the loco.

 

When operated correctly the 'departure' loco does pause an inch or so away from the stock and then slowly buffer up to the coaches to avoid jolting. There should then always be another move before the train departs, to replicate the time for the brake test to be completed. As we operate Minories now, the rush hour never finishes so there is always a turnaround loco in the station, but at Moorgate it would run light at the ends of the peaks from and to Finsbury Park.

 

The traverser on Minories is the fiddle yard - a 6 road 5' long unit that is very space efficient, but does restrict operation and of course inevitably stock now exceeds the number of roads.

 

The reason for the line extending under the station building and the concept of an north - east through line linking the GN to the LTS is cock up rather than design. The curve of the tracks at the country end of platforms 1 and 2 meant that the Kadees wouldn't couple up, so I simply extended the line by 8 inches to create an almost straight section of track to couple up on, and on which the station building sits. However if all goes well over the next few weeks, we'll have non-passenger trains running through the station in the off peaks in time for Tolworth Showtrain and Wakefield in November. I'm currently knitting together a new control panel for the new 10 road fiddle yard....

 

Tom

Thanks Tom. I stand corrected and it just goes to show that you often see what you think is there not what really is. There seemed no other purpose for the short hidden section than to be a traverser, albeit a very simple one for occasional use, and I'd even figured out how to build one.

I shall look forward to Tolworth,

[SteveyDee68]

On 05/09/2014 at 22:54, Pacific231G said:

The original goods version of Minories did seem a bit awkward as all goods trains had to shunt in and out of platform three and the goods shed would rather hide the passenger station.

 

 

This may have been a while ago (2014) but the design reminds me of Rev Alan Shone's Wardleworth Lines Committee terminus St John's, which featured a train ferry. If the above "goods shed" became a train ferry as per the Rev's own idea, that would allow both passenger and freight to use Platform 3, as cross-Channel traffic.

 

Of course, if the "goods shed" became a ferry, it would need to be considerably longer to look realistic (say three or four carriages per road) which would make the station longer too, and the scenic treatment would need to change. Off topic from the original discussion of an intensive city terminus, but perhaps makes the "goods" aspect more palettable/appealing?

 

Below is Rev Shone's St John's station - although mirrored, hopefully the similarity I see might be seen by others, too?

 

 

 

Not the best editing, but here's the plan "ferry-fied!"

 

 

Edited May 30, 2020 by SteveyDee68
Corrected incorrect autocorrect corrections!

[RJS1977]

The simplest solution to avoiding having to shunt via Platform 3 is to have another crossover at the right hand end of the headshunt giving access to the 'Up' line, with a further crossover between the Up and Down lines considered to be 'offstage'. This also has the advantage that a goods train can arrive while a passenger train leaves Platforms 2 or 3.

 

Another possibility would be to have a completely separate 'undercroft' goods yard on a lower level. 

[Pacific231G]

On 14/09/2019 at 11:58, SteveyDee68 said:

 

This may have been a while ago (2014) but the design reminds me of Rev Alan Shone's Wardleworth Lines Committee terminus St John's, which featured a train ferry. If the above "goods shed" became a train ferry as per the Rev's own idea, that would allow both passenger and freight to use Platform 3, as cross-Channel traffic.

 

Of course, if the "goods shed" became a ferry, it would need to be considerably longer to look realistic (say three or four carriages per road) which would make the station longer too, and the scenic treatment would need to change. Off topic from the original discussion of an intensive city terminus, but perhaps makes the "goods" aspect more palettable/appealing?

 

Below is Rev Shone's St John's station - hopefully the similarity I see might be seen by others too?

 

 

 

Not it the best edit but here's the plan "ferry-fied!"

 

 

That's a brilliant idea Stevie. Platforms one and two are for conventional boat and local trains while anything, wagons or Wagons Lits, for the train ferry is pulled into "platform three" (which I'd see as a quayside line) from where a shunter moves suitable cuts back to the headshunt whose length is determined by the length of the ferry's  train deck. (or how much of it you choose to model.

 

In its post war-rebuilt format, Dieppe Maritime,which had ambitions to develop more than it did, had two platform roads either side of a central platform and a quayside line  which also had a short platform used by the local railcars that provided the service to Rouen when the boat train took the more direct route to Paris via Serqueux (now a cycle track boo hoo!) If the Paris train was busy enough to require a relief, or if a package holiday "special" to the Spanish border, a pilgrim train to Lourdes or any other extra service was running, you could have three passenger trains in the station at the same time.  When passenger trains weren't around, goods trains could run through the passenger station to reach the Gare Maritime Marchandises beyond which could be represented by a fiddle yard or just a cassette. During WW1 some of the British military train ferry services ran from Southampton to Dieppe - which was safely back from the front-  and after the war the local Chambre de Commerce tried to use the facilities installed for this to set up a commercial train ferry service to Britain. They failed in this but, had they succeeded.......

 

Now. If you reverse the rather perverse decision to build Ireland's railways to a wider gauge than Great Britain's the scope for train ferries increases enormously.

 

Edited September 20, 2019 by Pacific231G

[TravisM]

I’ve always liked the “Minories” layout plan but after much hair pulling, teeth nashing and general frustration regarding my spare room space, my original plan of the Ketton signal box area has been put on the back burner and I’ve decided to build a “modern” version of the layout.

 

 I want to set it in the 2018/19 era, so is the track plan good for the present day or with track rationalisation, would I need to make substantial changes (or even small ones).  The only thing I can think of changing is either removing the loco spur or extending it so a small DMU can be stabled there.  I’ve recently purchased a Bachmann Scenecraft single road servicing shed at a great price, and even though I hate them as every layout seems to have a MPD, I thought of replacing the goods shed with it and having a DMU inspection point, something like Nottingham Eastcroft.

 

Any useful suggestions would be helpful.

 

 

[PatB]

Off the top of my head I'd say that the original, goods-free, 3 platform Minories would be more or less perfect for modern day operation. There's no really complex pointwork to have needed rationalising. Take out the loco spur, although you could probably model where it once was, represented by obviously infilled platform surface and a change in platform face. The signal cabin would need to go too. 

 

I suspect that Platform 3 would also have been decommissioned, although, in these days of increasing rail use, maybe not. Or, again, perhaps you could model it as if removed in the 1970s and then reinstated in the modern era to cope with increased traffic. 

 

An intriguing possibility would be to model the station as if undergoing refurbishment, allowing modelling both down-at-heel legacy infrastructure and shiny new fixtures and fittings side by side, and plenty of opportunity for timetable variations to allow for one platform or another to be out of use due to construction works. 

[t-b-g]

It all depends what sort of operation you want to carry out.

 

The modern scene would work on a Minories but would be a bit limited.

 

I saw a similar layout at a show recently and although the modelling was very good the operation was a multiple unit arriving or a multiple unit leaving. It didn't seem very interesting to operate or to watch.

 

At least in steam days, or even in early diesel days, the releasing of a loco and the addition or removal of vans or vehicles gives a bit more variety. That sort of thing just doesn't happen nowadays.

[Karhedron]

21 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I saw a similar layout at a show recently and although the modelling was very good the operation was a multiple unit arriving or a multiple unit leaving. It didn't seem very interesting to operate or to watch.

 

I guess that sort of layout is mainly to showcase the stock.

[Pacific231G]

On 24/09/2019 at 10:18, t-b-g said:

It all depends what sort of operation you want to carry out.

 

The modern scene would work on a Minories but would be a bit limited.

 

I saw a similar layout at a show recently and although the modelling was very good the operation was a multiple unit arriving or a multiple unit leaving. It didn't seem very interesting to operate or to watch.

 

At least in steam days, or even in early diesel days, the releasing of a loco and the addition or removal of vans or vehicles gives a bit more variety. That sort of thing just doesn't happen nowadays.

I have to agree except that separate locos and the handling vans and other vehicles doesn't give a bit more variety- it gives way more variety both of stock and of operation. 

 

I've operated a Minories that was mainly worked with EMUs and, though that was fine for showcasing a range of EMUs, it convinced me that for my own layout I would need more in the way of operation. That layout did provide some of that with a few loco hauled trains, particularly parcels trains, that needed to be shunted. OTOH the EM GN Minories built by members of the MRC to mark the plan's 50th anniversary in 2007 was/is largely worked by loco hauled trains whose motive power needed to use the loco spur. Though an apparently repetitive operation this does make it challenging to run an intensive service without getting snookered- exactly what Cyril Freezer was offering as an alternative to the branch line.

 

To further illustrate the point, the old terminus at Fort William, which I saw on more than one family holiday after the end of steam there, was simply a single track main line that had passed the loco and goods yards a few hundred metres before with a station layout consisting of just two points feeding three platforms. Two of the platforms were full length bays and the other extended to what had once been a quay side. That extension was sometimes used as a handy place to shunt the odd couple of carriages though I never saw that. There had been a releasing crossover between the two bays but it had long since been removed, Despite this extreme simplicity, and my then general antipathy to diesels, I found the working of this terminus fascinating to watch. Trains arrived from both Glasgow and Mallaig and departed, with new locos, to Mallaig and Glasgow respectively. In between though were the operations of removing and adding restaurant cars, sleeper sections, observation cars (that had to go back to the loco shed for turning)  and tail load goods wagons. This made for periods of very intense working and, even when the passenger trains weren't doing much, the main line acted as the shunting neck for one of the goods yards so a diesel shunter bumbling up and down kept the place interesting.  I'm quoting Fort William (old) here because, with the exception of the loco spur and simultaneous arrivals and departures, it actually offers almost identical operational potential to the original passenger only Minories. 

 

In either case, replace all that activity with various sets simply arriving and departing and, in the case of Fort William, perhaps one  loco hauied sleeper to and from London each day and the interest is far less. I don't know the answer to this for making layouts based on current practice interesting to watch and operate. Relying on adding TMDs and PW depots seems to smack of desperation.   I suspect that this, rather than just loyalty to steam, is why such a high proportion of layouts reflect the era before the railways were rationalised; there's just more going on.

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Pacific231G

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

I guess that sort of layout is mainly to showcase the stock.

 

Precisely why I said it all depends what you are wanting from the layout. Some people simply not interested in intricate operations and an easy "train in, train out" layout is a lot easier to exhibit and run than one with lots of shunting. For me, it would be dull after 10 minutes and if it was a home layout, I would soon lose interest.

 

Some people are just happy to keep something moving as easily as possible and multiple unit in and out operation gives them that.

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

Precisely why I said it all depends what you are wanting from the layout. Some people simply not interested in intricate operations and an easy "train in, train out" layout is a lot easier to exhibit and run than one with lots of shunting. For me, it would be dull after 10 minutes and if it was a home layout, I would soon lose interest.

 

Some people are just happy to keep something moving as easily as possible and multiple unit in and out operation gives them that.

With Sheffield Exchange Mk1 I would quite often have a DMU only session and would thoroughly enjoy it. I wasn't showcasing my stock as I only ran it in my garage and didn't need to show myself what a collection of half finished DMUs I have. There were times when operating with loco hauled trains the faffing about of changing locos could broader on being a chore not  fun.

 

Anyone with limited space and enjoys passenger train operation , both hauled and MUs then have a bash at a Minories layout, they are fun to drive.

[TravisM]

If I do build the layout, it won’t be exhibited as it will stay in my home but able to be stored away.  I like the idea of period station which has been renovated and new fixtures and fittings added.

 

As most of my stock is East Midlands Trains based, I’d ideally like the station to shout “Midland Railway” but are there any MR station kits available which could be adapted to a terminus setting.  I did consider using Bachmann Scencecraft’s recently reintroduced GCR buildings and use them to create a former GC station in the Nottinghamshire area that remained part of the network after the mainline closed.  You could see where the line used to continue too but buffer stops, Palisade fencing and trees block further reintroduction (for now).

Edited September 24, 2019 by jools1959

[john new]

For a Midland Railway cheat possibly adapt Bradford Forster Square. The road bridge that crossed (still crosses?) above the platforms would mean that you wouldn't need to have a fully scenic buffers end to the layout.

 

On the CJF Minories plan his bridge is to disguise the fold, I've often thought it could also hide the buffers end of the station allowing for various off stage options to be hidden. 

[Harlequin]

The original versions of Minories had a full canopy roof over all three platforms to hide the buffer stops and allow the track to end as close to the box wall as possible.

 

[mdvle]

4 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

I guess that sort of layout is mainly to showcase the stock.

 

It can also depend on how much time one has for the layout.  If you have a life with a lot of competing things for time a simple layout that suits only have say 10 minutes at a time to operate may be more appropriate.

 

And while it may not happen on the real railway, there is not reason you couldn't add a bit of interest with DMUs by saying having a storage siding for a Class 153 and periodically add / remove it from a 2 car DMU train.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

With Sheffield Exchange Mk1 I would quite often have a DMU only session and would thoroughly enjoy it. I wasn't showcasing my stock as I only ran it in my garage and didn't need to show myself what a collection of half finished DMUs I have. There were times when operating with loco hauled trains the faffing about of changing locos could broader on being a chore not  fun.

 

Anyone with limited space and enjoys passenger train operation , both hauled and MUs then have a bash at a Minories layout, they are fun to drive.

 

As I say, it all depends on how you like to operate. Minories is certainly great fun to operate. All loco hauled or all multiple unit both have their limitations. One needs lots of coupling, uncoupling and shunting. One can be a bit limited. Although my interests are pregrouping and multiple units were not around, we do run a steam railmotor and a push pull, which work the same way. They do add a bit of a relief from the loco hauled stuff.

[leopardml2341]

5 hours ago, john new said:

For a Midland Railway cheat possibly adapt Bradford Forster Square.......

Like this?

 

 

[john new]

28 minutes ago, leopardml2341 said:

Like this?

 

 

 

Along those ideas yes. 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by john new

[Compound2632]

On 24/09/2019 at 21:02, leopardml2341 said:

Like this?

 

 

 

Settle down to work your way through The Laird's videos and you'll discover the operating potential of this apparently simple layout.

[Free At Last]

28 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Settle down to work your way through The Laird's videos and you'll discover the operating potential of this apparently simple layout.

This is one of my favourites, I often watch the set in chronological order, it is almost 2hrs long.

[leopardml2341]

Great fun, and sometimes quite demanding to operate.  Fiddle yard space was limited and some thinking ahead was needed even though it was run to a strict sequence.

[Pacific231G]

On 24/09/2019 at 15:28, Harlequin said:

The original versions of Minories had a full canopy roof over all three platforms to hide the buffer stops and allow the track to end as close to the box wall as possible.

 

I'm not sure if that was the main reason. From his books I think Cyril Freezer felt. perhaps rightly, that an overall canopy was necessary for the proper main line terminus ambience and it's marked as "lift-off" on the original plan suggesting that it might be removed for operating sessions.  The canopy doesn't in any case need to run quite so far along the platforms but it does mask how short the trains really are.  The buffer stops against the box wall with stairways up to a high level station building may seem like a cheat but Ealing Broadway's once separate District Railway terminus was like that and I'm sure there were others, not least the present Euston station of course. You can still see the set up at Ealing, which also has three District Line platforms, and though the steps up to the original concourse have gone  the canopy and the station building, now shops and offices, are still very much intact. Between the buffers and the end wall there's just a very narrow footway.   Running the three platform tracks right up to the end also allowed for an extension to be plugged in "even a foot would help" On the original plan, the high level station building with its road was an add-on to the folding baseboard itself possibly with a bit more track length on it though that's not explicit in the oriignal 1957 article in RM.

Geoff Ashdown's Tower Pier uses a fairly short overall canopy and I find it totally convincing as a City of London terminus crammed into its site.

The whole of this excellent layout is only two metres long- the same length as Cyril Freezer's original plan using short radius points-  with another metre for the cassette based fiddle yard but it seems to be at least 50% longer than that.

 

 

 

[RJS1977]

I suspect the 'lift off' may well have been more for track cleaning and rerailing locos that hit the buffers too hard....

 

CJF used overall roofs in many of his plans, and in one book he confessed "I am quite partial to them, but they're not compulsory"!