Theory of General Minories

[Clive Mortimore]

4 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

The variety of workings possible at a compact terminus was well illustrated by The Laird's Bradfield, Gloucester Square thread. 

 

 

Hi Simon

 

I saw Bradfield, Gloucester Square after it had been sold on and was very disappointed with it. Hardly any operation but loads of noisy DMUs in the fuddle yard.

[t-b-g]

29 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Simon

 

I saw Bradfield, Gloucester Square after it had been sold on and was very disappointed with it. Hardly any operation but loads of noisy DMUs in the fuddle yard.

 

That really does back up the idea that it is as much about the operators as it is about the layout design or the locos and stock.

 

I had a similar experience with Borchester Market. I saw it a few times and the operation varied from wonderful to poor, depending who was working it.

[Chris116]

3 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

That really does back up the idea that it is as much about the operators as it is about the layout design or the locos and stock.

 

I had a similar experience with Borchester Market. I saw it a few times and the operation varied from wonderful to poor, depending who was working it.

Many years ago I had been helping operate a layout and late in the afternoon was asked if I could help the following day on a tramway layout which I had noticed had very few people watching while I was checking out how to operate it. The operator had three trams running on a 20 foot long street with a six foot balloon loop at one end. I asked why they had so few trams running and was told that it was not worth running anymore as not many people seemed to be interested!

 

The following afternoon I had between 15 and 20 trams in action and a three deep crowd around the whole layout. When the owner came back he asked how I had got the crowd and I just pointed to his depot and said "I emptied the depot and am running everything I can." He was amazed and warmly thanked me. How you operate a layout is 50% of the battle in keeping people interested and that means having things not only running but running in an interesting way.

[t-b-g]

1 minute ago, Chris116 said:

Many years ago I had been helping operate a layout and late in the afternoon was asked if I could help the following day on a tramway layout which I had noticed had very few people watching while I was checking out how to operate it. The operator had three trams running on a 20 foot long street with a six foot balloon loop at one end. I asked why they had so few trams running and was told that it was not worth running anymore as not many people seemed to be interested!

 

The following afternoon I had between 15 and 20 trams in action and a three deep crowd around the whole layout. When the owner came back he asked how I had got the crowd and I just pointed to his depot and said "I emptied the depot and am running everything I can." He was amazed and warmly thanked me. How you operate a layout is 50% of the battle in keeping people interested and that means having things not only running but running in an interesting way.

 

Total agreement on that. I have seen a good operator make a simple layout hugely entertaining and I have seen poor operators make extensive and potentially entertaining layouts dull to watch.

[woodenhead]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Simon

 

I saw Bradfield, Gloucester Square after it had been sold on and was very disappointed with it. Hardly any operation but loads of noisy DMUs in the fuddle yard.

I know what you mean, I've seen it a couple of times since it was sold on.  But the second time the running had improved, I think perhaps at first it was a challenge for the new owners getting their stuff running on it sweetly.

[Flying Pig]

2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Simon

 

I saw Bradfield, Gloucester Square after it had been sold on and was very disappointed with it. Hardly any operation but loads of noisy DMUs in the fuddle yard.

 

Hi Clive - me too I'm afraid. 

[Chimer]

4 hours ago, CaptainBiggles said:

It’s not beyond the realms of imagination to link a Minories in East London with a Seironim somewhere out in the ‘burbs.

 

Parallel universes, anyone? 

 

If I did it, Minories and Seironim wouldn't be two ends of a single (but double-tracked!) line.  Given my areas of regular and occasional interest, they'd both be BR(LMR) termini, but one would be a replacement Manchester Victoria, serving mostly northeast Lancs with BR(ER) interlopers coming in from the "alternative destination", and the other nearer Birmingham with the AD interlopers from BR(WR).  So the train leaving Minories for, say, Accrington (up the Stanley!) would arrive at Seironim from, say, Stafford (I'm prepared to take it on the chin from people who will only use locos that were actually allocated to local sheds).  While the train leaving Minories for York behind a B1 would of course never appear at Seironim, and the Castle-hauled special leaving Seironim for Bristol would not worry the signalmen at Minories.

 

This would of course need cassettes for the AD traffic, which would be hell to operate in a U-shaped setup at home, but fine at an exhibition in a U or a straight line.

 

 

[RJS1977]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Total agreement on that. I have seen a good operator make a simple layout hugely entertaining and I have seen poor operators make extensive and potentially entertaining layouts dull to watch.

 

Occasionally when I've been doing a shift operating a friend's layout at shows, I've been known to try to do something "more interesting" while he's been away. It's usually either resulted in me finding out that at a crucial stage a particular wagon and loco don't have compatible couplings, or said friend coming back from lunch and spending the next hour trying to work out where everything is!

[Harlequin]

By the way I am pronouncing Seironim, "Sigh ro nim" most of the time but sometimes, "See ro nim".

 

Sigh rhymes with My as in "My Nor ees" - which I know is wrong but it's how I've always said it!

 

Never Ever, "Sigh ro nime" or "See ro nime"!

 

[Zomboid]

It's "Say-ro-nim" to me. Or sometime "Sair-on-im".

[woodenhead]

What ever would rezeerf liryc say?

[Nearholmer]

Interesting, because when I worked in the area, and used occasionally to go to a pub there, a proportion of people used to pronounce Minories with a short hard "i", which always sounded wrong to me.

 

Sh1t! About a gallon of water just came through the window of my study, over the part-built layout on top of my shelves - really impressive thunderstorm underway.

 

 

Edited June 16, 2020 by Nearholmer

[t-b-g]

31 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Occasionally when I've been doing a shift operating a friend's layout at shows, I've been known to try to do something "more interesting" while he's been away. It's usually either resulted in me finding out that at a crucial stage a particular wagon and loco don't have compatible couplings, or said friend coming back from lunch and spending the next hour trying to work out where everything is!

 

All part of the fun. I have friends who do that sort of thing and will organise the private owner wagons in alphabetic order or a mixed goods in order of wagon height. Or I will come back from lunch and find the station crammed full and the fiddle yard empty. 

 

It isn't always possible, I know but I tend to find the best operation usually involves people running layouts and stock that they are familiar with. If you have some locos and stock with incompatible couplings, you either have a sequence that doesn't involve them coming together at any time or you tell all your operators!

 

I have only ever met a handful of people who can watch a layout for a few minutes and then be able to operate it well.

 

I mention this as it has a slight relevance to the thread. One person who I have seen do that on several occasions is Nick Freezer, Cyril's son.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

There’s a real wealth of wisdom I’ve gleaned from this chart-topping thread.  It’s challenged me to step back,  sit down and re-think the design process for a compact urban terminus station, to try and synthesise what I’ve learned (and re-learned from years ago).  I’m sharing my thoughts here, not because I think I’ve somehow come up with something better or original (I obviously haven’t, and I’m not trying to), but in case others in the shallow end like me are still wondering if this is a good way to realise their ambitions with limited space, skills and time.

 

My usual approach to layout planning starts with a station on a continuous run, a place where I can prepare trains and send them on their way.  I don’t tend to include fiddle yards or hidden tracks, and ‘interesting’ to me includes watching a train eat up the miles.  I’ll admit to a soft spot for GW Branch Line Termini, but I’ve never come up with an urban station design I really wanted to build and operate (a diorama would be good enough for me).  But I’ve become convinced I should give it some thought: I enjoy watching terminus stations at exhibitions, perhaps I’d like to build one?  I’ve enjoyed exploring some of the options here (a US version and the various junction versions) but what about the basic model?  Here are my constraints:

 

1.      A compact OO Gauge British steam era urban station for mainly passenger operation.

2.      To restrict myself to baseboards no bigger than 4’ x 1’ - portable, for use by a solo operator.  Max: 12’.

3.      To have an operating sequence that does not need me to ‘fiddle’ the yard during a sequence.

 

Why not just build a Minories?  There are elements of Minories I want to include, but some I don’t need.

 

I haven’t started with the station at all, but with the Fiddle Yard.  With standard Peco Streamline geometry I can fit 6 tracks side by side in a 1’ width.  My woodworking isn’t up to building a traverser or sector plate - the two legged table I made for my ‘O’ level woodwork still haunts me (the leg at one end was OK, it was the wonky one in the middle that did for me).  It means I need space for a fan of tracks, of varying length.

 

However, it means I can have up to six trains ‘in play’:

 

1.      A Branch Line Shuttle.  For me this is a GW Autocoach and 14xx - I believe there used to be such a working from Birkenhead Woodside to West Kirby at one time.  Can come and go.

2.      A Local Train.  Ideally the loco can run round the carriages and depart as a new service.

3.      A Mainline Train, possibly including ‘tail end’ traffic for shunting on arrival - this will require a loading bay.  The other coaches will be pulled off stage to go for cleaning in the carriage sidings, for which a station pilot is needed.  The road engine will leave the station separately as a light engine movement. (For departures, the reverse  will occur - note: the road engine will need to be turned round by hand at some point, although the station pilot can propel the coaches back into the station and reconnect any departing NPCS).

4.      A Special Train, which will arrive (or depart) amidst fuss and fanfare, and will again need two engines: a road engine and a station pilot.

5.      Good Train A: a short train of vans bringing city essentials in for local businesses.  A small goods shed or loading bay will be needed.  Full goods facilities won’t be provided - the main goods yards and larger rail-served industries are down the line.

6.      Goods Train B: a short train of coal wagons, including for the station pilots.  Coal was needed for everything, but facilities will be limited at this station.

 

Without really having to think about it, I already need six trains and up to eight engines (so I don’t have to handshunt my station pilots in the Fiddle Yard).  If I have an operating sequence with (say) three turns by the Branch Shuttle, I can already count 20 train / engine movements on or off stage, plus shunting the two Goods Trains and the tail end traffic on stage during the sequence.

 

That ought to keep me occupied for half an hour or so before I have to go and reset the fiddle yard for the next sequence.  It’d be nice to add another turn or two for the Local Train, and this could be done with the freed up road engine from the Mainline Train or Special, and without any hand shunting.

 

How do I avoid the “ping-pong” feeling as trains pop on and off stage?  The various insights from experienced layout operators on how details can enhance realism using signalling and bells are the answer.  With a small layout, details become more achievable – even where it would stretch my modelling skills.

 

This is what I’ve come up with, 11’ x 1’ with two 3’6” boards and a pair of 2’ boards and 13 points (long points for the three that make up the junction throat, medium points elsewhere).  3 coach shortie trains: Elements of Minories:

 

 

Points to note:

 

1.  The Fiddle Yard tracks are designated per the train list above – longer tracks for longer trains.

2.  I connected the Engine Shed relief road to Track 1 as it seemed I could miss a trick if I left it stub ended.  It runs off Platform 1 as that is the only platform I need to use in that way.

3.  I have a single running line – I’m happy to operate one engine at a time as it slows down the sequence.

4.  Having a relief line for light engines means I can have a loading dock here.  Again, as only Platform 1 trains are planned to have tail end traffic / NPCS I can run the access to this from Platform 1 to save space.

5.  It’s Ok that engines will get “trapped” at the concourse end of Platform 1 as it’s designed to be operated with a Station Pilot / Light Engines from the relief line.  I’d imagine a backscene with station offices running along the platform length to emphasise its importance.

6.  Platform 2 becomes a standard line with a loco release loop for local trains and goods trains.  It is not an island platform, so a fence to separate the Goods Yard could be used (keeping the platform narrow).

7.  The Goods Yard is not intended to be comprehensive, coal staithes could be modelled in low relief, and the small Goods Shed can just take a couple of vans at a time.

8.  At the moment I’m not showing a scenic divide bridge here – as my four baseboards aren’t consecutive pairs, they’d probably not be hinged.  There is a small S curve to access the Good Shed siding, but not a “jiggle,” so I’d want to see if a bridge helped or not.  Given how short my trains are, it might be introduced.

 

The obvious thing to do first with more space would be to add to the train length, although that would need extensions at both ends.  An extra 6” might be enough, depending on how tight clearances are as drawn.

 

Certainly one for the ideas file, and more in line with what I’d like than a pure Minories.

Edited October 7, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[Zomboid]

28 minutes ago, Chimer said:

If I did it, Minories and Seironim wouldn't be two ends of a single (but double-tracked!) line.  Given my areas of regular and occasional interest, they'd both be BR(LMR) termini, but one would be a replacement Manchester Victoria, serving mostly northeast Lancs with BR(ER) interlopers coming in from the "alternative destination", and the other nearer Birmingham with the AD interlopers from BR(WR).  So the train leaving Minories for, say, Accrington (up the Stanley!) would arrive at Seironim from, say, Stafford (I'm prepared to take it on the chin from people who will only use locos that were actually allocated to local sheds).  While the train leaving Minories for York behind a B1 would of course never appear at Seironim, and the Castle-hauled special leaving Seironim for Bristol would not worry the signalmen at Minories.

Interesting idea. I'd have "Oxford Magdalen" where the fictional LSWR branch to Oxford meets the equally fictional GCR branch so I could run Southern and LNER trains together. And the other end would be "Bank (or some variant thereof)", served by the Oxford via Richmond & Bracknell services, and electric local trains.

 

That would be fun to play with.

[Pacific231G]

On 16/06/2020 at 19:32, Zomboid said:

Interesting idea. I'd have "Oxford Magdalen" where the fictional LSWR branch to Oxford meets the equally fictional GCR branch so I could run Southern and LNER trains together. And the other end would be "Bank (or some variant thereof)", served by the Oxford via Richmond & Bracknell services, and electric local trains.

 

That would be fun to play with.

The GCR branch isn't so fictional. It would have been Met and an extension of a straightened Brill branch with its junction at Quainton Road so would likely have had GCR services (I think Oxford appeared in some of Peter Denny's 'Buckingham Branch' timetables) . The terminus was to have been just to the north of St. Clements (there was actually an address for it!) a couple of hundred yards east of Magdalen Bridge. Given that nothing of a railway nature was going to be allowed the same side of the Thames/Oxford Canal or River Cherwell as the colleges that's probably where Oxford Magdalen would have had to have been- the original GWR branch terminus from Didcot was  on the south side of Folly Bridge just west of Abingdon Road . 

Edited June 23, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Nearholmer]

Rainy day musings on the Oxford terminus, including map, here on p4: 

 

[Zomboid]

Well I didn't know about that. Though I doubt they'd have built a Minories/ Seironim style terminus near Magdalen bridge.

[Nearholmer]

If the earlier proposals had succeeded, before house-building filled the space, they could well have created something fairly sizeable, although not in a brick-lined trench, unless they wanted it to be a dual purpose canal and railway terminus.

[Pacific231G]

On 16/06/2020 at 21:00, Zomboid said:

Well I didn't know about that. Though I doubt they'd have built a Minories/ Seironim style terminus near Magdalen bridge.

The Oxford, Aylesbury and Metropolitan Junction Railway Company was authorised to build a railway by an Act of Parlieament in 1883. It started to bring the Brill tramway up to main line standard and from Brill would have run through almost a mile of tunnel through Muswell Hill (the cost of that is probably what scuppered the plan) then to  Boarstall, Stanton St. John, Headington with its terminus "in the back garden of 12 High Street, St Clement's" . This would now be no 12/13 St. Clement's Street which is about 150yds from the centre of Magdalen Bridge. There were even plans to electrify the line so a Minories sized terminus would have been entirely possible (The three platform Hammersmith terminus of the GW/Met Hammersmith and City line is about as close as it gets to Minories)  Had this line been built there would in theory have been no fewer than four ways of getting from London to Oxford.

1 Aylesbury, Verney Jct. Bicester, Oxford Rewley Road,

2. High Wycombe, Princes Risborough, Thame, Cowley, Oxford GWR,

3. Reading, Didcot, Oxford GWR

4. Aylesbury, Quainton Road, Brill, Oxford (St.Clements/Magdalen Bridge) and that would havw been the shortest of the four (not necessarily the fastest)

 

Edited June 23, 2020 by Pacific231G

[ejstubbs]

On 15/06/2020 at 16:28, Zomboid said:

It probably doesn't count as a true Minories if you bend it round a corner

 

The version of Minories in Plan SP37 of my edition of 60 Plans... (the one where it runs out and back round a reverse curve surrounding a large loco depot) has a curved approach, albeit with a right-hand curve on the approach vs the left-hand-curved approach in your example.

 

I reckon if CJF drew it, it counts!

[Zomboid]

So my hastily concocted ploy to run LNER trains and Southern trains on the same layout without needing any brass safety valve covers is at least 50% credible. And that's a fascinating proposal. The idea of the Metropolitan railway (presumably) running electric London to Oxford trains is pretty out there.

 

I doubt the other half will be as easy, but it's way better than I'd thought already.

[Pacific231G]

On 16/06/2020 at 21:34, Nearholmer said:

If the earlier proposals had succeeded, before house-building filled the space, they could well have created something fairly sizeable, although not in a brick-lined trench, unless they wanted it to be a dual purpose canal and railway terminus.

The former terminus basin of the Oxford Canal is now a car park on the south side of Hythe Bridge Street. I always thought this a  wasted opportunity for what could have been a  very attractive feature but at the time the Oxford canal was more about dumping prams than urban regeneration.

There was a proposal to buld the O..A & M jct. Railway's terminus in North Oxford on land  belonging to St. John's College in  North Oxford between the Banbury Rd. and the River Cherwell. The passenger terminus would have occupied 11 acres so definitely not a tiny BLT. I'd always thought of Oxford's other other station being a bit like Windsor and Eton (Riverside) but a joint terminus with the LSWR might have needed to be a bigger but still very much a secondary main line terminus (a bit like Bath Green Park perhaps?)

The 1883 act did though refer to St. Clements so it would be interesting to speculate about an LSWR connection, Would it have gone from Reading (Southern) then up the opposite bank of the Thames from the GWR via Clifton Hampden, Littlemore and Cowley looping in to join the Met/GC line into Oxford (St. Clements/Magdalen)

That part of Oxford was more town than gown and the printer behind the old Municipal Resturant (who printed an alternative school magazine that I edited)  would have probably been on the site earmarked for the station. 

 

For anyone wanting a Minories with brass safety valve covers, one can perhaps consider a situation where the GWR retained its Oxford terminus, perhaps because the OWW and the GWR line from Oxford to Banbury had been forced much further west to the right bank of the Thames via Binsey and Godstow, It might then have developed on similar lines as a reversing terminus for many trains with others bypassing it with a shuttle to and from a "Botley  Jcn" station (a bit like Tours)  I don't think even God's Wonderful Railway could have got away with just an "Oxford Road" station dumping Oxford passengers several miles from the city.      

Edited June 23, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Nearholmer]

Yes, I went hunting for the site of the canal basin last time I was over at Oxford, and was rather underwhelmed by what exists there now.

 

Were there actually electrification proposals for this route to Oxford? The first (1888) Oxford and Aylesbury Tramroad Act is ambiguously worded, but seems to permit electric traction, which would have been pretty high-tech stuff given the date, but by that stage it was envisaged as a fairly squiggly, and I think partly roadside, tramway, so I'd never envisaged it as an "electric railway proper".  The 1893 Act that extended and revised powers  said: "The gauge of the tramroad will be 4 feet 8.5 inches and the motive power to-be employed will be steam applied to traction purposes by means of steam locomotives.", so the electric idea seems to have been given-up by then. I haven't found a later Act thet permitted electrification, but there are a lot of Acts to wade through for such a non-existent line!

 

Of course, if Zomboid was to build it as a main-line sort of terminus, it would only be necessary to consult Rev Denny's timetables to know what times trains would arrive from Buckingham.

 

The Oxford Tube is, unfortunately, a 'bus, rather than something on the Underground map, these days.

Edited June 16, 2020 by Nearholmer

[RJS1977]

35 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Would it have gone from Reading (Southern) then up the opposite bank of the Thames from the GWR via Clifton Hampden, Littlemore and Cowley looping in to join the Met/GC line into Oxford (St. Clements/Magdalen)

 

 

The GWR uses both banks of the Thames - Goring station is on the north bank. The LSWR would have had to run pretty close to the GWR at this point as there is only a fairly narrow gap to aim for. The alternative would have been a lengthy tunnel underneath Woodcote, coming out near Crowmarsh Gifford - the A4074 is by no means flat!