Theory of General Minories

[Joseph_Pestell]

6 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Note that it also has an entirely separate goods system at a slightly higher elevation which gets round some of the limitations of Minories and might be worth copying too if we expand our layout a bit to handle some freight.

 

Using two different, unconnected, levels is a space saving device that has not been exploited nearly enough on layouts.

[Nearholmer]

Yes, and there were some amazing multi-level example barely a stones-throw from the real Minories at Shoreditch and Spitalfields etc.

 

If I was to start my layout again, I’d certainly look to include more than one level.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Nearholmer

[RJS1977]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Using two different, unconnected, levels is a space saving device that has not been exploited nearly enough on layouts.

 

Something else which I'd been thinking during this discussion - many termini had goods yards underneath them - St Pancras and Manchester London Road spring to mind immediately and I'm sure there were many more, so maybe an alternative way to get a goods yard into Minories...

[t-b-g]

1 minute ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Something else which I'd been thinking during this discussion - many termini had goods yards underneath them - St Pancras and Manchester London Road spring to mind immediately and I'm sure there were many more, so maybe an alternative way to get a goods yard into Minories...

 

The layout I have quoted several times as the inspiration for my mini minories had just that. The station was raised up on a retaining wall and a goods only line came through a tunnel in the wall into a goods yard that was in front of the fiddle yard, at a lower level and unconnected. The goods yard fiddle yard was a single cassette behind the station.

[Siberian Snooper]

10 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Something else which I'd been thinking during this discussion - many termini had goods yards underneath them - St Pancras and Manchester London Road spring to mind immediately and I'm sure there were many more, so maybe an alternative way to get a goods yard into Minories...

 

Birmingham Moor Street is another one for your list.

 

 

 

[St Enodoc]

15 hours ago, t-b-g said:

Whereas the dimension known as "the four foot" is 4ft 8 1/2inches.

Of course, in Victoria (and, presumably , South Australia, Ireland and so on) it is the "five-foot".

[Zomboid]

13 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

It takes us beyond a pure Minories discussion, but what a cracking layout idea. Bath Green Park and Bournemouth West with fiddleyards to represent the other destinations. Definitely worth a drawing. Probably needs a shed of about 24' x 10' in 4mm.

I don't think anyone's getting a 1:76 reasonable representation of Bournemouth West into 7x1, that's for sure. The passenger end of Green Park might be compressible to a fairly small size. Actually quite a lot of its character (based on the signalling diagram) is present in Seironim as things stand.

[Satan's Goldfish]

On 18/06/2020 at 21:32, Zomboid said:

Just for the record, like this:

The loco spur still uses the inbound track for shunting, but all other lines are accessed via the outbound.

 

I like it either way round personally.

 

Very nice, thanks Zomboid.

 

The only difference in my head is the loco spur would be trailing rather than facing the inbound track. Accessing the spur from the centre road would need a couple of shuffling either way around, however...

 

 

 

20 hours ago, Zomboid said:

I'd like to offer the following as a thought on the Seironim "design by committee" process:

The curved point gets the lower platform line round a bit quicker to enable the platform itself to be wider. The single slip allows all shunting to be via the outbound line, though the top platform is pretty narrow at the end - however that's hardly unusual, for example the platforms at London Waterloo are very narrow at the end, and get wider towards the concourse. 

Trains of 3' + Loco are doable, I think.

 

Using the asymmetric 3 way wouldn't change a lot, I just default to the code 100 library for some reason. I'd actually only have a run round on the top platform personally, Bath Green Park style.

 

I like that, nice solution with the extra single slip and curved point. In my head the centre road still doesn't really need a facing connection to the inbound line but the fact it's gained one by default in that design is just a bonus as it means parcels that need shunting to the siding don't have to block a platform.

 

 

 

20 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

That looks very nice, very smooth.

A couple of problems, though:

• "Full length" trains (~3ft plus loco) would have to pull right up to the buffers in both platforms, so the release crossovers are not as useful as they should be .
• The parcels bay passes through where the hinge posts would be if it folds like Minories. 

 

 

 

YouTube footage of Norwich station in the 1980s shows trains pulling up to the buffers, the station pilot then draws the coaching stock back a few feet so the arriving loco can escape via the loco release crossover, the pilot then pushes the stock back to the buffers, gets out of the way, and the train engine reattaches itself for departure. Adds a lot of operational interest.

 

...and as a continuation from my first reply, I think I can remember when I was young that platform 1 at Norwich mostly seemed to handle the London trains. Before the DBSOs came into use, a class 86 for the departing service would be ready in a loco spur that could only access platform 1, for the return service. So a loco spur with limited access does have some use as per the first plan.

 

Good stuff

[Harlequin]

I've tried out all the suggestions and for me, the best compromise for Seironim is pretty close to the original. Let me explain why:

 

 

• The parcels bay has decent length and avoids the hinge post.
• The curve in the parcels bay sets up the curve in the platforms - it all fits together.
• I know the parcels bay has to be shunted using the inbound line but I can't see a way to avoid that that doesn't adversely affect multiple other aspects of the design (IMO).
• The curve in the platforms is strong with just one deliberate turn, no changes in radius.
• The peninsula platform is prototypically wide.
• Platform faces are over 4ft 6in long.
• Using a curved turnout in the crossover to P2 straightened the platform lines up too much and affected the clarity of the curve.
• Using larger radius turnouts in the crossover to P2 prevented it handling full length trains.
• Using Large Ys in the throat made the peninsula platform between the parcels bay and P1 too thin and/or too short.
• The loco spur is still facing the platforms and I think that's better because:
  • The throat is less congested
  • It allows P2 to be longer
  • It makes better use of the bottom left corner the baseboard
  • It's similar to Greenwich Park (see below), although on the other side, admittedly
• Full length trains can pull up against P1 with room for the loco to release itself.
• Full length trains in P2 either have to be released by the pilot or set back to use the release, as Zomboid suggests. There is room on the P2 side of the station to do that without fouling other movements.

New things in this design:

• Shown the hinge posts, so the box is an exact reflection of Minories.
• The crossover into P2 has a 3 degree turn inserted to help smooth out the platform curves and clear the bottom hinge posts.
• High level station building hides the proximity of the buffers to the edge of the world.
• Platform canopies
• Another road overbridge cutting across at an angle to create a mini-scene in the middle.

Here's Greenwich park circa 1895. (The scissors crossover is under Royal Hill overbridge.)

 

Edit: Oooh! I just realised that there would be a fantastic view looking into the scene from bottom right, through the two bridges to the throat pointwork.The tracks turn towards the viewer and then turn away again as they pass through the bridge shadows!

 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Harlequin

[Nearholmer]

I still like it.
 

I think extra bridges, especially at angles, help these things look longer. If road bridges are felt too domineering, footbridges, the sort that continue some ancient alley right of way, are a viable alternative, and can be made quite ornate/interesting.

[St Enodoc]

20 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

I've tried out all the suggestions and for me, the best compromise for Seironim is pretty close to the original. Let me explain why:

 

 

• The parcels bay has decent length and avoids the hinge post.
• The curve in the parcels bay sets up the curve in the platforms - it all fits together.
• I know the parcels bay has to be shunted using the inbound line but I can't see a way to avoid that that doesn't adversely affect multiple other aspects of the design (IMO).
• The curve in the platforms is strong with just one deliberate turn, no changes in radius.
• The peninsula platform is prototypically wide.
• Platform faces are over 4ft 6in long.
• Using a curved turnout in the crossover to P2 straightened the platform lines up too much and affected the clarity of the curve.
• Using larger radius turnouts in the crossover to P2 prevented it handling full length trains.
• Using Large Ys in the throat made the peninsula platform between the parcels bay and P1 too thin and/or too short.
• The loco spur is still facing the platforms and I think that's better because:
  • The throat is less congested
  • It allows P2 to be longer
  • It makes better use of the bottom left corner the baseboard
  • It's similar to Greenwich Park (see below), although on the other side, admittedly
• Full length trains can pull up against P1 with room for the loco to release itself.
• Full length trains in P2 either have to be released by the pilot or set back to use the release, as Zomboid suggests. There is room on the P2 side of the station to do that without fouling other movements.

New things in this design:

• Shown the hinge posts, so the box is an exact reflection of Minories.
• The crossover into P2 has a 3 degree turn inserted to help smooth out the platform curves and clear the bottom hinge posts.
• High level station building hides the proximity of the buffers to the edge of the world.
• Platform canopies
• Another road overbridge cutting across at an angle to create a mini-scene in the middle.

Here's Greenwich park circa 1895. (The scissors crossover is under Royal Hill overbridge.)

 

Edit: Oooh! I just realised that there would be a fantastic view looking into the scene from bottom right, through the two bridges to the throat pointwork.The tracks turn towards the viewer and then turn away again as they pass through the bridge shadows!

 

Yes but...

 

Showing the hinge blocks highlights the problem with platform 2.

 

I can think of two ways to overcome this:

 

1. a piano hinge that could be covered by a scenic bridge deck.

 

2. wallpaper pasting table hinges.

 

There may be others.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

52 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

I've tried out all the suggestions and for me, the best compromise for Seironim is pretty close to the original. Let me explain why:

 

 

• The parcels bay has decent length and avoids the hinge post.
• The curve in the parcels bay sets up the curve in the platforms - it all fits together.
• I know the parcels bay has to be shunted using the inbound line but I can't see a way to avoid that that doesn't adversely affect multiple other aspects of the design (IMO).
• The curve in the platforms is strong with just one deliberate turn, no changes in radius.
• The peninsula platform is prototypically wide.
• Platform faces are over 4ft 6in long.
• Using a curved turnout in the crossover to P2 straightened the platform lines up too much and affected the clarity of the curve.
• Using larger radius turnouts in the crossover to P2 prevented it handling full length trains.
• Using Large Ys in the throat made the peninsula platform between the parcels bay and P1 too thin and/or too short.
• The loco spur is still facing the platforms and I think that's better because:
  • The throat is less congested
  • It allows P2 to be longer
  • It makes better use of the bottom left corner the baseboard
  • It's similar to Greenwich Park (see below), although on the other side, admittedly
• Full length trains can pull up against P1 with room for the loco to release itself.
• Full length trains in P2 either have to be released by the pilot or set back to use the release, as Zomboid suggests. There is room on the P2 side of the station to do that without fouling other movements.

New things in this design:

• Shown the hinge posts, so the box is an exact reflection of Minories.
• The crossover into P2 has a 3 degree turn inserted to help smooth out the platform curves and clear the bottom hinge posts.
• High level station building hides the proximity of the buffers to the edge of the world.
• Platform canopies
• Another road overbridge cutting across at an angle to create a mini-scene in the middle.

Here's Greenwich park circa 1895. (The scissors crossover is under Royal Hill overbridge.)

 

Edit: Oooh! I just realised that there would be a fantastic view looking into the scene from bottom right, through the two bridges to the throat pointwork.The tracks turn towards the viewer and then turn away again as they pass through the bridge shadows!

 

Phil, I think this is fantastic: I hope someone has a go at building this.  For me, the centre track and gently curved platforms (no S-curve) really add something, and while there is more track in the throat than Minories it adds to the city feel.  I wasn’t sure it would be possible to get in the extra track and have a decent platform width - but I see you’ve managed to include a canopy on the island platform too (better than an overall roof, which I’d thought about for my simpler Seironim).
 

With bit of care, I wonder if you could have the Platform 2 hinge blocks fastened only to the top of the side pieces (I’m thinking of the profile on your actual Minories).  If they could be made strong enough, then you wouldn’t need to block Platform 2 at that point - the bridge appears to continue further.  It may depend which half folded on top and if it could be kept light enough?

 

As the parcels bay is hidden at the back by the two bridges, I think you’ll get away with it being shunted from the Arrivals line: and my guess is it wouldn’t be used for every train movement - any vans there would become part of the backdrop for some of the day as I envisage it.
 

Presumably you could just flip your Fiddle Yard scheme for it to work with this instead of Minories?  It would cost a bit more to build though - 9 regular points, plus the 3-way and single slip, although someone who builds their own track might love it.

For anyone with a bit more space, Greenwich Park would make a show-stopper in the right hands (not mine!).

Edited June 20, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke
(typo)

[Harlequin]

28 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Yes but...

 

Showing the hinge blocks highlights the problem with platform 2.

 

I can think of two ways to overcome this:

 

1. a piano hinge that could be covered by a scenic bridge deck.

 

2. wallpaper pasting table hinges.

 

There may be others.

 

Yep. If you are being really strict about using the Minories box then the hinge posts interrupt P2 and that's one of the compromises in this design.

 

But in reality there are lots of ways to work around it.

 

[Zomboid]

Were I building it, I would be tempted to put any hinge blocks on the outside of the box. This might be considered "cheating" - anyone making such a suggestion would be referred to Rule 1.

 

I think the seed of Seironim is good enough that any of the variations we've seen would make for an engaging layout to operate. If you're working in OO in 7x1 then you've just got to pick which compromises you want to live with.

[whart57]

19 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

For anyone with a bit more space, Greenwich Park would make a show-stopper in the right hands (not mine!).
 

 

Even though the real Greenwich Park only saw a shuttle service for most of it's life? It would be a use for the Hattons P class though.

 

Now I know that this is theory and the idea is for a busy opposite end of a city centre terminus so picky little details like the whole point of Greenwich Park station disappearing in 1899 with the working union between SER and LCDR are not wanted.

 

In which case the SECR area provides a few more candidates. Chatham Central for example, though the modern Thameslink connection might offer better suggestions. Back in pre-Group days the stations of St Paul's (now part of Blackfriars) and Holborn (originally Snow Hill) were small termini, but they lay beside the through line connecting the southern and northern railways. I've always thought this bit of London railway would make an excellent exhibition layout given the three stations of St Pauls, Ludgate Hill and Holborn lying so close to each other the platforms almost touch. As anyone who takes the Thameslink trains across the city will know today.

[t-b-g]

12 minutes ago, whart57 said:

 

Even though the real Greenwich Park only saw a shuttle service for most of it's life? It would be a use for the Hattons P class though.

 

Now I know that this is theory and the idea is for a busy opposite end of a city centre terminus so picky little details like the whole point of Greenwich Park station disappearing in 1899 with the working union between SER and LCDR are not wanted.

 

In which case the SECR area provides a few more candidates. Chatham Central for example, though the modern Thameslink connection might offer better suggestions. Back in pre-Group days the stations of St Paul's (now part of Blackfriars) and Holborn (originally Snow Hill) were small termini, but they lay beside the through line connecting the southern and northern railways. I've always thought this bit of London railway would make an excellent exhibition layout given the three stations of St Pauls, Ludgate Hill and Holborn lying so close to each other the platforms almost touch. As anyone who takes the Thameslink trains across the city will know today.

 

A friend of mine is modelling Greenwich Park as if it had survived to the late 1960s and had been electrified. Just because the real station faded and closed has never stopped a modeller with a good imagination.

[Harlequin]

44 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Were I building it, I would be tempted to put any hinge blocks on the outside of the box. This might be considered "cheating" - anyone making such a suggestion would be referred to Rule 1.

 

I think the seed of Seironim is good enough that any of the variations we've seen would make for an engaging layout to operate. If you're working in OO in 7x1 then you've just got to pick which compromises you want to live with.

 

Absolutely. People can modify, adapt and improve the plan however they like but to do justice to the original idea I feel I have to stick with the limitations set by Minories. So this is the version I'll use in the parametric projection.

 

It would be interesting to see how much the plan would improve by using the footprint of SP36, the next of CJF's versions of Minories in "60 Plans". Would 8ft by 1ft3in (with no fold) allow the parcels bay and loco spurs to be swapped over without losing platform length?

 

[Chris116]

Maybe the solution to the hinge blocks would be a strong metal half bridge on each half of the boards with a hinge the length of the bridge which can then be hidden by a model bridge. That would keep the supports nice and thin and not blocking platform two. 

[Zomboid]

3 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

It would be interesting to see how much the plan would improve by using the footprint of SP36, the next of CJF's versions of Minories in "60 Plans". Would 8ft by 1ft3in (with no fold) allow the parcels bay and loco spurs to be swapped over without losing platform length

Without trying it, I would say probably.  Depends how long you want your trains though, if we're sticking with 3 mk1ish plus a 4 wheel CCT and a loco (which is my measuring stick for a long enough train) then I would have thought it would be pretty easy. The extra width on its own ought to be enough to get the parcels bay onto the lower side if we go back to Y points.

[t-b-g]

4 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

Absolutely. People can modify, adapt and improve the plan however they like but to do justice to the original idea I feel I have to stick with the limitations set by Minories. So this is the version I'll use in the parametric projection.

 

It would be interesting to see how much the plan would improve by using the footprint of SP36, the next of CJF's versions of Minories in "60 Plans". Would 8ft by 1ft3in (with no fold) allow the parcels bay and loco spurs to be swapped over without losing platform length?

 

 

I have found that an extra 3" of board width and the 8ft length is a simple cure for most of the difficulties. It makes the difference between the layout looking shoehorned in and looking as though it belongs in that space. It also allows a decent retaining wall, with a realistic "batter" slope and buttresses or arches and even perhaps a low relief building along the top. My "mini minories" is 8ft x 1ft 6ins as I wanted to have a station building along and behind the platform and a small amount of room for scenic work along the front.

 

It just gives it room to "breathe" whereas the true Minories, so far best seen in physical form in the Hornby Dublo video, will always look to me as though it has been forced into the space.  

[Zomboid]

55 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

It would be interesting to see how much the plan would improve by using the footprint of SP36, the next of CJF's versions of Minories in "60 Plans". Would 8ft by 1ft3in (with no fold) allow the parcels bay and loco spurs to be swapped over without losing platform length?

Too easy.

 

You don't really even need the extra width to get an extra normal platform:

 

But with the extra width there's space for a really long parcels line or departure platform.

Platform widths are by eye, so might be a little narrower than you'd want for the full length, but it's not hard up to the edge either so I don't see any likelihood of it being impossible.

 

Just noticed that my "fold line" is 6in too far to the left, but that changes nothing at all.

[t-b-g]

28 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Too easy.

 

You don't really even need the extra width to get an extra normal platform:

 

But with the extra width there's space for a really long parcels line or departure platform.

Platform widths are by eye, so might be a little narrower than you'd want for the full length, but it's not hard up to the edge either so I don't see any likelihood of it being impossible.

 

Just noticed that my "fold line" is 6in too far to the left, but that changes nothing at all.

 

It all depends on what sort of look and what sort of complexity you hope to achieve. I would prefer to use the extra width to improve alignments and to give room for a small scenic "frame" rather than to squeeze an extra track in.

[Clive Mortimore]

I seemed to have lost the plot on this.

 

A busy inner city terminus with lots of loco action representing the peak periods of the day is what the original Minories offered. 

 

Adding a central track to act as a run round destroys the whole ethos of the plan. It either makes the trains shorter or the layout longer to fit in the additional point work. It loses the hustle and bustle of the intense operation.

 

May be I am talking out of a lower body orifice, but arriving, reversing down the platform, releasing the loco so it can go forward again, changing the points, running round the train, changing the points, reversing the loco and then propelling the train back down the platform does sound more like CJFs other love, the Ashburton branch.

 

This why I asked the other day about who had built a Minories layout and enjoyed operating it. Instead of trying reinvent the wheel, have ago at making a Minories layout and enjoy the ride.

[woodenhead]

32 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Adding a central track to act as a run round destroys the whole ethos of the plan. It either makes the trains shorter or the layout longer to fit in the additional point work. It loses the hustle and bustle of the intense operation.

I agree, if you are to add the centre track it needs to be for empty stock storage rather than running around then you get the full use of the platforms back.

 

The GC side of Manchester London Road was like that but with two stock holding sidings between the platforms.  ECS from Adwick would arrive with the train loco hauled in at the back of the working and the engine that drew the stock in would have to wait for the departure of the train to be released.

[Nearholmer]

37 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Adding a central track to act as a run round destroys the whole ethos of the plan

IMO, it makes a different plan, with a different atmosphere.