Minories 1983

[Jesse]

At a city terminus station, the home signals would be very close to the approach pointwork - as close as possible.

 

The potential issue, since you are putting the layout in a cutting, is whether those signals could be seen by an approaching driver if there is a bridge across the cutting. Not a problem if the bridge is high above the tracks, but that does a less good job of hiding the fiddleyard. With a low bridge the signals would probably be on the other side of the bridge so not on the scenic part of the layout at all. That's why I prefer Minories on a viaduct.

 

There is a get-out clause though. If the first station (or junction) from the terminus was very close, the signal might have to be sited at a location where it was not very visible but provided with a banner repeater on the other side of the bridge.

 

Thanks, so that might be quite a good place for the signal, provided the driver has a good line of sight. One solution might be using free-standing signals instead of gantry-mounted.

I'm doing some planning on how to control and signal the layout and think that (as far as my knowledge of BR signalling goes) normally every platform would have a starter signal and the home signal near the entrance would be of the 3-arm junction type - indicating the platform the train is heading for. Then there would be several shunting signals but I'll leave those out at first, as it would be a real challenge to build them  in N scale. Is this configuration about right or am I missing something important?

Edited July 17, 2015 by Jesse

[Mutley]

Hi Mutley. I remember your version and always thought it looked good. Your photos are still there but not the plans.

I know you mothballed it back in 2008 but wondered if you've done anything with it since and do you still have its final plan? .

 

Hi Pacific, unfortunately the layout got damaged when I moved house, so I never got around to revitalising it.  This is the only plan I can find of it, the baseboards took on a pretty curious shape after I had hacked it around to fit better into the space I had.

 

 

I've just started to build a large permanent layout in my new garage but I always come back to Minories and can see myself  building another one at some point as a side line.

 

Mike

[31A]

I have a similar situation on my layout where a terminus station is preceded by an over bridge and the home signals need to be between the bridge and the station throat pointwork (and the station is approached round a curve).  I justify to myself the poor sighting of the home signals by the fact that all trains would be approaching at slow speed and stopping anyway, so a long distance sight of the signals wouldn't be necessary.

 

Below is a driver's eye view:

 

 

At the moment the home signal is temporarily a colour light with route indicator leading to three platforms, but one day I'll make a semaphore gantry.  The Up Main line is second from left (left hand line is a headshunt); to the right of that is a loco spur.

[Pacific231G]

Hi Pacific, unfortunately the layout got damaged when I moved house, so I never got around to revitalising it.  This is the only plan I can find of it, the baseboards took on a pretty curious shape after I had hacked it around to fit better into the space I had.

 

MutleysMinories.jpg

 

I've just started to build a large permanent layout in my new garage but I always come back to Minories and can see myself  building another one at some point as a side line.

 

Mike

Thanks Mike

That's pretty close to the arrangement I was playing with this afternoon except that I was using Peco longs for the outermost left hand points and for the right hand points that form the left hand side of the back to back pair. That meant that any reverse curves with no straight between them were entirely five foot radius. However I've just tried your arrangement with the two Ys and medium instead of long points and, unlike the standard Minories approach where it does make a difference, I'm not seeing much if any benefit from the longer points. That would enable the entire approach to fit comfortably into a length of 36 rather than 39 inches (90cms instead of a metre) which seems very little but could be quite significant. I've tried it with two sorts of coach but need to test it with a few more. 

Edited July 18, 2015 by Pacific231G

[Joseph_Pestell]

Thanks, so that might be quite a good place for the signal, provided the driver has a good line of sight. One solution might be using free-standing signals instead of gantry-mounted.

I'm doing some planning on how to control and signal the layout and think that (as far as my knowledge of BR signalling goes) normally every platform would have a starter signal and the home signal near the entrance would be of the 3-arm junction type - indicating the platform the train is heading for. Then there would be several shunting signals but I'll leave those out at first, as it would be a real challenge to build them  in N scale. Is this configuration about right or am I missing something important?

 

Yes, the usual arrangement would be three home Up signals each on its own doll on a gantry. In places with restricted sighting, there could be some variations.

 

One possibility is repeater arms on long posts, another is a gantry with the signals hung below rather than standing on it. The GW and Southern were quite keen on just having the one signal arm with a route indicator below.

 

A Minories does not need much by way of shunting signals as most moves would be covered by the running signals. There would be one to leave the loco siding (or probably a signal if converting to a parcels bay). There would be three (mounted above each other) for locos to back down onto a train from the Down.

[class"66"]

Some nice pictures Steve...

 

 

cheers neil..

[sammyboy]

I happened to walk down a street called "Minories" in London after leaving Fenchurch St station and immediately thought about this classic layout plan, before getting the tube across to St. Pancras, followed by a fantastic journey home by HST.

 

Sam

[griffgriff]

I happened to walk down a street called "Minories" in London after leaving Fenchurch St station and immediately thought about this classic layout plan, before getting the tube across to St. Pancras, followed by a fantastic journey home by HST.

 

Sam

Apparently coincidental but it's a road in the area of Fenchurch Street and Aldgate.

 

Griff

[Pacific231G]

Apparently coincidental but it's a road in the area of Fenchurch Street and Aldgate.

 

Griff

Minories gave its name to the original 1840 terminus of the cable hauled London and Blackwall Railway. It was partly replaced by Fenchurch Street in 1841 and completely in 1853. It was just to the north of the DLR's Tower Gateway terminus.

 

Cyril Freezer said he chose the name simply because it sounded to him like a good name for an inner urban commuter terminus. He didn't locate it geographically in that part of the City and it wasn't necessarily even in London as there are Minories in Birmingham and I believe several other cities. The London name related to the local Abbey of St Clare whose nuns were  "sorores minores" or little sisters of St Clare.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Pacific231G

[trisonic]

He also commuted via Fenchurch Street for a time so it’s quite likely he was familiar with the Minories name in that area.

 

Best, Pete.

[Jesse]

I made some final adjustments to the plan: put a straight section between the two 'platform curves', while maintaining the 1200 mm radius, and extended the loco/parcels bay as well, making it suitable to park a 2-car DMU. I managed to add another 5 cm to the platforms.

 

 

I'm happy with the plan as it is, the materials are in as well, so let's start building now! 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Building in N has given you a bit more space than CJF had with the original. You have used it well by putting that extra bit of straight track between the curves in the platform.

 

The signals are not quite in the right place but that can be dealt with later.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Joseph_Pestell

[Jesse]

Thanks. You're right, I'll finish the trackwork first before determining the exact location of the signals. As the height of the bridges will be an important factor, I'll have to get those in place as well. But we'll see that later. First some base board construction.

[Jesse]

One more question: I noticed Mr. Freezers original plan has a catch point in the loco/parcels track. Would one prototypically expect to see a catch point there? In this case, a stray car would run straight into the signal box. Surely, that would never be possible in reality?

[HillsideDepot]

Looking good, Jesse - I'm tempted to reach for the roll of wall paper and my stored fleet of Sprinters to plan something similar, but I must resist (to much else still to finish!). I will be watching with interest as this progresses.

[edcayton]

One more question: I noticed Mr. Freezers original plan has a catch point in the loco/parcels track. Would one prototypically expect to see a catch point there? In this case, a stray car would run straight into the signal box. Surely, that would never be possible in reality?

 

Stranger things have happened! That is probably preferable to having it collide with a train full of passengers.

 

Ed

[CloggyDog]

One more question: I noticed Mr. Freezers original plan has a catch point in the loco/parcels track. Would one prototypically expect to see a catch point there? In this case, a stray car would run straight into the signal box. Surely, that would never be possible in reality?

 

Yes, the throat would be protected by  a catch point off the loco spur. Given the short run, I doubt any loco would get up enough speed to reach the box.

 

And you'd be surprised just how many catch points/spurs aimed at signal boxes...

 

 

Signalling - rather than a gantry of starters on the far side of the overbridge, much more likely would be a separate post-mounted starter for and on each platform, probably with a subsidiary shunt arm below to release the inward working's loco to the shunt limit (on the down road, beyond the final crossover) from which it can shunt back to either another train or the loco spur. The starters/shunts for pfms 2 and 3 could be bracket mounted with equal height dolls. If you have them gantry'ed beyond the overbridge as shown, you'll likely need banner repeaters for pfms 2 and 3 at least, otherwise the poor driver wouldn't see them!

 

Here's how we did it on Ripper Street

(the subsidiary bracket off the Pfm 1 starter is for shunts into the facing stabling spur, the loco spur being out of sight to the right side of the pic,)

 

 

You might also need a ground signal (at the limit of shunt?) for entry into the loco spur as well as one just before the catch point permitting release out from the loco spur to the limit of shunt.

 

It would be assumed that each platform starter would give permission to proceed via the down line to the next block section, so at best you'd have a distant on the down just before your scenic break (also useful as an indicator that your FY is ready to receive), but this could equally be assumed to be beyond the scenic break and therefore not modelled.

 

The signal on the up road would be before the fouling point of the crossover and could be a 3-way bracket or a single arm with some form of route indication.

 

 

I do like what you've done with adding the short straight sections into the platform roads, a very subtle but worthwhile improvement to the original.

Edited July 23, 2015 by CloggyDeux

[Clive Mortimore]

I made some final adjustments to the plan: put a straight section between the two 'platform curves', while maintaining the 1200 mm radius, and extended the loco/parcels bay as well, making it suitable to park a 2-car DMU. I managed to add another 5 cm to the platforms.

 

minories1983-7.jpg

 

I'm happy with the plan as it is, the materials are in as well, so let's start building now! 

Hi Jesse

 

The home signal protecting the station pointwork would have some form of indicating to the driver which platform/route he is going. On Sheffield Exchange I have used a junction signal but one with a route indicator would be equally at home.

 

 

This was my first attempt at the signalling for Sheffield Exchange where I drew the alternatives as well. I hope this helps.

[Jesse]

Thanks Alan and Clive, that's very useful information, I'm learning a great deal about the workings of British signalling. For the moment I'll have to find a way to make a catch point (I wonder how a Peco code 80 one will look?), making the signals will be a nice challenge later on. My aim is at least to make the main running signals functional, perhaps also the subsidiary shunt signals. Ground signals would be difficult in N though, I'm afraid. 

 

[edit]

Looking at some prototype pictures, I guess it's not that difficult at all to modify a standard code 55 point to make a (double bladed) catch point, or would a single bladed one be better suited?

 

(sorry for my terrible Paint skills)

Edited July 23, 2015 by Jesse

[Joseph_Pestell]

Thanks Alan and Clive, that's very useful information, I'm learning a great deal about the workings of British signalling. For the moment I'll have to find a way to make a catch point (I wonder how a Peco code 80 one will look?), making the signals will be a nice challenge later on. My aim is at least to make the main running signals functional, perhaps also the subsidiary shunt signals. Ground signals would be difficult in N though, I'm afraid. 

 

[edit]

Looking at some prototype pictures, I guess it's not that difficult at all to modify a standard code 55 point to make a (double bladed) catch point, or would a single bladed one be better suited?

catch point.JPG

 

(sorry for my terrible Paint skills)

 

I personally prefer the double-bladed arrangement you have there. Era and region might dictate the single blade.

[croydon junction]

Thanks Alan and Clive, that's very useful information, I'm learning a great deal about the workings of British signalling. For the moment I'll have to find a way to make a catch point (I wonder how a Peco code 80 one will look?), making the signals will be a nice challenge later on. My aim is at least to make the main running signals functional, perhaps also the subsidiary shunt signals. Ground signals would be difficult in N though, I'm afraid. 

 

[edit]

Looking at some prototype pictures, I guess it's not that difficult at all to modify a standard code 55 point to make a (double bladed) catch point, or would a single bladed one be better suited?

catch point.JPG

 

(sorry for my terrible Paint skills)

if you want a single blade one just remove the inside rail but retain everything else.

[Bangor Lad]

Don't PECO still make catch points?

[islander]

Don't PECO still make catch points?

Only in code 80, not code 55.

[Jesse]

Slightly adjusted the trackplan to fit the catch point in. As I didn't want the platform to get any narrower, I had to use the tightest curve (500 mm) on the layout so far. Still, I think it doesn't look too bad, though I might have to get a speed restriction in place...

 

Edited July 24, 2015 by Jesse

[Joseph_Pestell]

Slightly adjusted the trackplan to fit the catch point in. As I didn't want the platform to get any narrower, I had to use the tightest curve (500 mm) on the layout so far. Still, I think it doesn't look too bad, though I might have to get a speed restriction in place...

 

minories1983-8.jpg

 

I don't see any problem with that plan. But you could make the catch (trap) point out of an LH curved turnout and bring it closer to the  throat.