Theory of General Minories

[Ravenser]

5 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

I'm not sure, even though Cyril Freezer often suggested it when extolling the virtues of "modern image".  What you lose with MU or push-pull trains is the key operational feature of turnover locos making intensive operation challenging. I've operated a Minories that was mainly EMUs with the occasional loco hauled parcels train . It was great for showing off a range of such trains (the builder's main interest) but I didn't find it all that interesting to operate for any length of time and I was running the parcels train rather too frequently.

 

On the other hand, main line termini layouts based on or roughly equivalent to Minories such as Bradfield (Gloucester Square), Tower Pier, or Minories (GN), based mainly or entirely on loco hauled trains, are the layouts I've found myself watching for the longest periods at exhibitions.

 

The other point about compression is that, in an urban setting, you're far less likely to be able to see more than three or four carriages of a train than you are in more open country. The overbridge on the original plan is therefore IMHO a key scenic feature that most versions of Minories leave out though an overall roof or equivalent  scenic break can fulfil the same function. Geoff Ashdown used both for  his EM gauge Tower Pier as this end on view shows 

This isn't the normal operator's or visitors' view of the layout and from the side you're simply not aware of just how short the layout is. The goods sidings are completely separate from the passenger side, which is operationally equivalent to Minories, on a slightly higher level and represent the final yard serving a line into the very cramped St. Catherine's dock.

When Geoff told me that Tower Pier occupies just two metre long boards (the same length as the original Minories in OO) with a cassette based fiddle yard on a third board the same length I was totally amazed.

 

 

 

 

Minories (GN) is not a main line terminal layout - it's always been explicitly suburban (GN Widened Lines) with a mix of Mk1 suburbans and DMUs though loco-hauled predominates, - and my strong impression was that Tower Hill was not really a main line terminal layout either. (Unless you call Fenchurch St and 1980s Marylebone mainline termini)

 

I've found that adding a loco-hauled substitute for one DMU into the mix for Blacklade's late 1980s period significantly enhances the operating influence. Such substitutions were an intermittent feature of the period when depots found themselves short of serviceable Modernisation Plan DMUs, and making more systematic use of this , to cover one diagram on a layout , should perhaps be done more often. 

 

There arealso the bits and pieces trains - a cl 20 and oil tank for the fuelling point, a Bachmann self-propelled crane - which can add a bit of interest while taking up only limited space in the fiddle yard . With DCC these can potentially occupy the back of a road otherwise used by a short formation of something else.

 

How the coal for the loco dock would arrive is an interesting question. If the goods movements are trips from a local marshalling yard then sticking a mineral wagon into the trip is not a problem. On the other hand a 16T mineral  is seriously out of place in a fully fitted fast goods.

 

On reflection , if the goods is served by  trip workings, there ought to be at least 2  such a day - and perhaps 3 if you are including workings from two yards (say Hither Green and Stratford). A morning trip - goods inward, and to remove empty wagons unloaded overnight / early morning ; and an afternoon trip for goods forwarded to go out on that night's fitted freights, and bring in goods inward wagons that didn't get sorted at the Yard in time for the cut-off on the morning trip. If the goods shed has 2 roads, each 2 ' long, that gives a nominal capacity of 12 wagons , but probably 9 would be sensible to give room for manoevre. This then means a fleet of 18-20 wagons , plus a couple of brakes - a train length of nearly 3' plus loco . I think tender locos should be avoided here - smallish tanks like J50s and Jinties were used on such workings and a Southern 2-6-4T would be in place

 

How you manage the brake van(s) when working the goods CJF never mentioned... I can't immediately see a way of getting the van off the back, out of the way of shunting , and then onto the concourse end of the outward train. It may be better to arrive with a van on each end and lose the back van in the sidings , using the front van as the rear of the outward train.  There will need to be a second goods tank to get the freight train out, and I still don't quite see how you run round a brake van to take it out, unless the station pilot gets involved. Otherwise you risk a gradual congregation of the entire local fleet of brake vans building up in the goods sidings... 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Ravenser

[Lacathedrale]

Sorry yes, obviously points first and then signals. But more importantly even the standard interlocking process slows these things right down - a runaround (not that they're in situ on Minories) requires a stop to the train. Uncoupling and drawing forward, stopping and the shunt signal pulled to reverse into the runaround. The other end of the runaround  is presumably protected or if not then the turnout at that end providing access to the runaround is interlocked with the ground signal at the buffer end, so requires another stop, etc. etc. - though we often underestimate the speed of steam trains moving around light-engine I don't think we as a hobby give enough credence to the realism that interlocking provides.

 

My own thoughts are to fully signal a Minories with a three-way junction signal with calling-on signals underneath at the up throat, and each platform having a home starter and shunt signal (as ex-SR, a ringed signal), a ground signal on the loco siding, and an outer home and slotted distant, as well as a shunt limit board on the up throat. Hopefully this can be interlocked either mechanically or electrically with the points, maybe even with a sykes locking device on the layout and one at the FY signalbox. It's free real estate operational interest. Now if I can just convince my missus to learn the correct bell codes....

[Lacathedrale]

With regards to goods workings, I think the 80's '"Modular Minories" is just overall a better idea - NPCS is served at the platforms, but goods are on a separate triangular baseboard adjacent with a runaround and some sidings.

[Nearholmer]

I reckon the Minories goods depot is based heavily on Vine Street Met. That was a sprig from the circle line outer road, and I’m pretty sure there were crossovers to allow running round*, whether they used two brake vans I couldn’t guess - the situation in this photo hints that they might have, but doesn’t prove so.

 

 

 

*Looking at this https://www.harsig.org/PDF/Met1933.pdf, it would have been possible to run-round using the crossovers at Farringdon and at Aldersgate. The whole fernangle must have interfered with passenger trains for ages, so I wonder at what time of day it took place. The photo suggests daytime, but may be posed and not representative of the reality.

 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Nearholmer

[D9020 Nimbus]

I keep coming back to the idea of an 'N' gauge Minories, set in Glasgow, probably in the last years of the ex-LMS system before its closure, as the main types of loco are available—Fairburn and BR Std 2-6-4Ts, standard 4MT 2-6-0s and class 101 DMUs, not to mention the occasional EE Type 1 or Clayton. Of course, if GF ever produce an N gauge V1/V3, I could consider the ex-LNE either…

[Ravenser]

10 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

I keep coming back to the idea of an 'N' gauge Minories, set in Glasgow, probably in the last years of the ex-LMS system before its closure, as the main types of loco are available—Fairburn and BR Std 2-6-4Ts, standard 4MT 2-6-0s and class 101 DMUs, not to mention the occasional EE Type 1 or Clayton. Of course, if GF ever produce an N gauge V1/V3, I could consider the ex-LNE either…

 

I presume you mean St Enoch , ex GSW lines?

 

Central and the ex CR lines were very much LMS, and are very much still open...

[Joseph_Pestell]

7 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

I presume you mean St Enoch , ex GSW lines?

 

Central and the ex CR lines were very much LMS, and are very much still open...

I think that he may have been meaning Buchanan St.

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, roythebus said:

Shunt and release is very time-consuming, not a problem on a model, but would be in the real thing, hence a turnover loco is provided.

 

 

In my imaginary Minories - which has a very IEG tinge to it - the inner suburban and probably outer suburban trains use turnover locos but @Nearholmer's stockbroker express certainly has to have the carriages worked ECS after arrival and before departure, either to carriage sidings screening the fiddle yard or to sidings off-stage. Likewise the loco will go off to shed.

[Ravenser]

14 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I think that he may have been meaning Buchanan St.

 

 Buchanan St was Edinburgh, not Glasgow?

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 minute ago, Ravenser said:

 

 Buchanan St was Edinburgh, not Glasgow?

No, Buchanan St was in Glasgow, directly above the Cowlairs Tunnel out of Queen St. Departure point for Caledonian/LMS trains to Perth, Inverness and Aberdeen. You are thinking of Princes Street in Edinburgh.

Post WW2, a proposal was made for a new "Glasgow North" station on the site of Buchanan St which would have combined the two stations' services. Planned to have 14 platforms, it is way too big for a Minories but one could imagine a version built in the 1960s to a smaller design.

[St Enodoc]

8 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

If a balloon loop is used, two inner suburban rakes become four by virtue of renumbering

And/or by painting them in different colours on each side.

[RJS1977]

20 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

And/or by painting them in different colours on each side.

 

I was thinking that earlier on - in the days when South West Trains and Connex were both operating slam-door sets, you could easily have a small south London terminus called at by both operators, with the units in one livery on one side and one on the other.

[Pacific231G]

7 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

Minories (GN) is not a main line terminal layout - it's always been explicitly suburban (GN Widened Lines) with a mix of Mk1 suburbans and DMUs though loco-hauled predominates, - and my strong impression was that Tower Hill was not really a main line terminal layout either. (Unless you call Fenchurch St and 1980s Marylebone mainline termini)....................

 

How you manage the brake van(s) when working the goods CJF never mentioned... I can't immediately see a way of getting the van off the back, out of the way of shunting , and then onto the concourse end of the outward train. It may be better to arrive with a van on each end and lose the back van in the sidings , using the front van as the rear of the outward train.  There will need to be a second goods tank to get the freight train out, and I still don't quite see how you run round a brake van to take it out, unless the station pilot gets involved. Otherwise you risk a gradual congregation of the entire local fleet of brake vans building up in the goods sidings... 

You're probably right about suburban with respect to Minories(GN) and Tower Hill  I was really using the term main line in opposition to branch line. The distinction between main line and suburban can get a bit blurry though with Fenchurch St. sort of half way between main line and suburban as Southend is a bit far out to be a suburb. There were also boat trains for liners docking at Tibury though I'm not sure how many of them went to Fenchurch Street. 

 

I'm sure there must be MRC members here who knew CJF quite well but I did get to have quite a long conversation with him  over a sandwich lunch a few years before he died and we mostly talked about Minories which he was justly proud of. He'd definitely settled on the goods yard being a kickback with a headshunt parallel to platform three and did mention an additional short siding specifically for brake vans. Even so, handling goods trains would surely have involved a station pilot but I think that was the practice at Fort William (effectively a single track Minories) where the single track main line up to the platform home signals effectively acted as the headshunt for the downside goods sidings.  

 

[Guest WM183]

12 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

I keep coming back to the idea of an 'N' gauge Minories, set in Glasgow, probably in the last years of the ex-LMS system before its closure, as the main types of loco are available—Fairburn and BR Std 2-6-4Ts, standard 4MT 2-6-0s and class 101 DMUs, not to mention the occasional EE Type 1 or Clayton. Of course, if GF ever produce an N gauge V1/V3, I could consider the ex-LNE either…

I know what you mean. LMS tanks on suburban services, the odd Crab or Black 5 on an intercity...

[Compound2632]

9 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

And/or by painting them in different colours on each side.

 

Only works if the carriage ends and roofs are the same colour in both liveries which is unlikely to be the case, pre-grouping.

 

3 hours ago, WM183 said:

I know what you mean. LMS tanks on suburban services, the odd Crab or Black 5 on an intercity...

 

... which really takes us back to Bradfield Gloucester Square.

[Joseph_Pestell]

8 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

You're probably right about suburban with respect to Minories(GN) and Tower Hill  I was really using the term main line in opposition to branch line. The distinction between main line and suburban can get a bit blurry though with Fenchurch St. sort of half way between main line and suburban as Southend is a bit far out to be a suburb. There were also boat trains for liners docking at Tibury though I'm not sure how many of them went to Fenchurch Street. 

 

I'm sure there must be MRC members here who knew CJF quite well but I did get to have quite a long conversation with him  over a sandwich lunch a few years before he died and we mostly talked about Minories which he was justly proud of. He'd definitely settled on the goods yard being a kickback with a headshunt parallel to platform three and did mention an additional short siding specifically for brake vans. Even so, handling goods trains would surely have involved a station pilot but I think that was the practice at Fort William (effectively a single track Minories) where the single track main line up to the platform home signals effectively acted as the headshunt for the downside goods sidings.  

 

 

Tilbury boat trains all went to St Pancras, I think. Would be much better for onwards travel to other parts of the country.

 

OK to not have any headshunt at Fort William where traffic was light. But rather different on a busy line in Central London albeit that some of the headshunts were very short.

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Tilbury boat trains all went to St Pancras, I think. Would be much better for onwards travel to other parts of the country.

 

 

The Orient Express:

 

 

NRM DY 9735, released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) licence by the National Railway Museum.

[Joseph_Pestell]

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The Orient Express:

 

 

NRM DY 9735, released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) licence by the National Railway Museum.

 

Leyton Orient?

 

I am fairly sure that Tilbury never had any connection with the European train of that name.

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Leyton Orient?

 

I am fairly sure that Tilbury never had any connection with the European train of that name.

 

"Orient Express" was the official title of the Tilbury boat train, though no doubt there was an element of official tongue-in-cheek. It connected with the sailings of the liners of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Compound2632

[Siberian Snooper]

23 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

It would look cracking if done as the Met. & District c1900, but by golly would that need a lot of scratch/kit building.

 

The one early Met layout that was in prospect, a really ambitious representation of Edgware Road while it was still dual-gauge, seems to have gone silent since one of the key team members passed away, which is a real pity - When I was still at TfL, I tried to persuade them to bring it to London, even in part-built condition, for the Met-150 Celebrations, but  they felt it was still too nascent.

 

I saw it at a show once, I can't remember where, though. It had the makings of being a great exhibition layout.

 

 

[FoxUnpopuli]

23 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Yes, which is why railways in places like this with intensive services electrified as soon as they could!

 

But, what is a real railway’s poison is very often a railway modeller’s meat.

 

Inefficiency is interesting; efficiency usually isn’t.

 

Now I'm not being disparaging* but I do wonder why people choose to model modern times because of this.

 

On the flipside, I do wonder what would have happened if modern efficiency practices would have been put in place in the late 1920s - i.e. all the big-4 would have got together and said to Parliament "stuff your common carrier regulations - let us do it better!"

 

(* I know and approve of the reason why - rule 1.  To misquote: "I disagree with what you model, but I will defend to the death your right to model it!")

 

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Tilbury boat trains all went to St Pancras, I think. Would be much better for onwards travel to other parts of the country.

 

OK to not have any headshunt at Fort William where traffic was light. But rather different on a busy line in Central London albeit that some of the headshunts were very short.

Indeed, but it was the use of the station pilot rather than the train loco to shunt goods trains rather than using the main line as a headshunt I was thinking of. CJF's later version of Minories with a kick back goods yard did have a headshunt. So did the original version but it could only be accessed via platform three. I might be wrong but I don't think that would be protoypical- not in Britain at any rate.

[Joseph_Pestell]

2 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Indeed, but it was the use of the station pilot rather than the train loco to shunt goods trains rather than using the main line as a headshunt I was thinking of. CJF's later version of Minories with a kick back goods yard did have a headshunt. So did the original version but it could only be accessed via platform three. I might be wrong but I don't think that would be protoypical- not in Britain at any rate.

 

It is certainly unusual but CJF never minded too much a bit of simplification to make a layout easy to construct. There was much less by way of rtl pointwork to play with back then.

I would be inclined to extend the headshunt off-scene to become a virtual loop with the other connection to the Down running line off-scene.

[D9020 Nimbus]

On 11/09/2020 at 17:10, Ravenser said:

 

I presume you mean St Enoch , ex GSW lines?

 

Central and the ex CR lines were very much LMS, and are very much still open...

Yes, but they closed in the 1960s and were reopened as the "Argyle line" a lot later. There are pictures of these lines in their last years prior to closure in British PTEs no. 1: Strathclyde, by Alan Millar (Ian Allan, 1985), and also in Irwell's Illustrated History of the Railways of Glasgow. So it was the Central low-level lines I was thinking of.

[Ravenser]

6 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Indeed, but it was the use of the station pilot rather than the train loco to shunt goods trains rather than using the main line as a headshunt I was thinking of. CJF's later version of Minories with a kick back goods yard did have a headshunt. So did the original version but it could only be accessed via platform three. I might be wrong but I don't think that would be prototypical- not in Britain at any rate.

 

I thought about the use of a pilot but...

 

- The loco dock is on the wrong side of the station . Getting across the station throat and then back would be a bit messy

- No matter what you do, the brake van will always be on the Country side of the engine. There is no run-round at Minories, so you can't get round this and get the brake van behind the engine - and it's simply incredible to depart from a London terminal with a loco propelling a brake van in front of it down the main line

- The same situation applies if you bring in a second goods tank.

- The only possible way round it is for the station pilot to pull the van out into a platform road and then sit there trapped at the buffers while the outward goods train is made up in front of it. Only when that departs is the station pilot released to go back to it's normal function.

 

St Pancras clearly was the terminal for MR Tilbury boat trains, as offering the main line connections with the rest of the MR system . That said , the idea of being able to run a Johnson Spinner on a boat train with a pullman is rather appealing, alongside your Genesis 4 and 6 wheelers.  (Other 4-2-2s could be used to taste, though the only ones actually available are Lord of the Isles, Caley 123, and the Stirling Single- and this kind of secondary terminus doesn't really sit well with the GW whilst the GN singles finished their days in East Lincolnshire. I'm not sure there are even kits for any other bogie singles)