Minories 1983

[Izzy]

 

Good idea to stick to the original simple point concept and ditch the slip. They may work okay in others scales, but my experiences of the code55 variety are that they have more gaps than rail and stock either bumps very badly through them - if your lucky - or gets stuck in the gaps. Like others I found I had to remove them and use simpler points to get useful running quality.

 

Izzy

[spiket4]

Looks a good plan just keep it simple.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Identical track layout, but visually I know which I prefer.

 

 

[Pacific231G]

Would that be this plan, which seems to be quite an old version of Minories (1961?)? 

I would like to keep this layout passenger-only as that's my main interest and I think any goods services to these type of stations would have gone by the 80's. The other version you mention, was without any sidings?

Hi Jesse.

No that's not quite the original version but a slightly revised one from Cyril Freezer's 60 Plans for small locations published by Peco in 1989. 

 

Minories first appeared in Railway Modeller in April 1957 with the basic passenger version in 6'6" x 9".folding in the middle and a version with a two track goods shed in front of the platfoms. That was the same length but 17" wide The basic passenger version was essentially the plan you've got in post 23 but I'll PM you the actual article.

 

The real reason for the slightly odd length was that he actually drew the plan for a five foot by eight inch folding layout in the new TT-3 scale that R-M had revealed the previous month. Peco and hence R-M had known about the new scale for some months and Tri-ang's initial release comprised a Jinty 3F tank loco, two suburban coaches - a brake second and a composite, and a small selection of goods wagons. Minories could be operated with just that stock and operation entirely by tank locos would not be out of place.

The original plans appeared unchanged  in 60 plans for small layouts over several editions but Cyril Freezer did later rework  them slightly. All of his subsequent versions were for three foot radius points but I assume the original was designed for Peco's 19inch radius TT-3 points which would be equivalent to about two foot radius in 00

 

Several members of the Model Railway Club built an EM version of the basic Minories to celebrate the plan's 50th anniversary while Cyril Freezer was around to see it and he was still a member of the MRC. They had to increase the length very slightly to accomodate the wider gauge but stuck as closely as possible to the original plan so it is the version with just the three platforms and the loco spur. It's often exhibited and if loco hauled trains are used it can be quite challenging to operate intensively.   The one thing that did strike me about it though was the large empty space in front of the tracks as they enter the throat. That could be dealt with by using a tapered board at that end. Putting the station on a viaduct would help that but I think the idea of a low level terminus in a cutting was that when folded it would form an easily stored box. 

[kevinlms]

I can cope with a reverse curve in the platforms or a reverse curve in the approach - but not both. It is like a double negative; it takes you back where you started. So a real railway would just have continued in a straight line.

So why not build the platforms straight in your model, thus running at an angle to the baseboard?

[muddys-blues]

Hi Jesse, as you are running DMU's I would definitely go with a kick back storage / cleaning siding on the lower single line platform, it does add another operational option to the layout.

 

Best regards

Craig.

[puck]

Hi Jesse. I see on your plan your exit is a tunnel. If you used a bridge you could possibly add an additional track from fiddleyard behind the signalbox. This could be a shunt neck for an offstage yard?

Puck

[Bangor Lad]

I've enjoyed reading this thread as I've been having the same debate with myself over layout, spurs, carriage sidings and whether to build in a cutting or on a viaduct. I must admit to having a soft spot for Saffron Street so I think I might be swaying towards the viaduct.

 

Looking forward to seeing your layout develop.

[KeithHC]

Just a thought and a further variation not stated as Minories but could be considered is Bradfield Gloucester Square: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/28198-bradfield-gloucester-square-br-1962-ish/

 

Lots of operating potential with loco hauled and DMU could well suit N gague.

 

Keith HC, Dursley

[Jesse]

I've enjoyed reading this thread as I've been having the same debate with myself over layout, spurs, carriage sidings and whether to build in a cutting or on a viaduct. I must admit to having a soft spot for Saffron Street so I think I might be swaying towards the viaduct.

 

Looking forward to seeing your layout develop.

 

Just a thought and a further variation not stated as Minories but could be considered is Bradfield Gloucester Square: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/28198-bradfield-gloucester-square-br-1962-ish/

 

Lots of operating potential with loco hauled and DMU could well suit N gague.

 

Keith HC, Dursley

 

Wow, both Saffron Street and Bradfield Gloucester Square are truly inpiring layouts! Dave, I see what you mean. Seeing those trains run over the roofs of those terraced houses: great! Still I think in my case a cutting would be far more practical as it can be easily folded and stored away. I really like that aspect of CJF's original plan.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Jesse

[Pacific231G]

Hi Joseph

 

A quick trip round London shows.

 

Cutting, Kings Cross, Moorgate, Liverpool Street, Victoria, Marlybone and Euston. 6

 

Viaduct, St. Pancras (as built), Broad Street, Fenchurch St, London Bridge, Cannon St, Blackfriars, Holburn Viaduct, Hammersmith (Met and GW joint) and Waterloo. 9

 

Ground level, Paddington. 1

Errr not entirely correct Clive.

Paddington is very definitely in a cutting both at the throat and concourse end and is below the local ground level till at least Ladbroke Grove. A number of the London termini took advantage of topography so Marylebone is at ground level at the concourse end but in a slight cutting by the throat (but it still passes over the Regent's Canal) Charing Cross and Victoria both have street level access at the concourse but used the fall of land towards the river to cross it. Hammersmith (Met/GW) is at street level at the concourse end but I'm not sure if it relies on topography or a gradient to climb to viaduct height above street level.

It's quite interesting to explore the approaches to the London Termini in Google Street View but so much development has taken place on the site of goods and other yards that its often difficult to identify the original lie of  the land before the railway arrived.

There probably is scope for an interesting change of level with the throat above a street level that rises  to reach the same height as the railway at the concourse end.

 

The most extreme example I know though is the St. Paul Terminus in Lyon where one side of the station is on a viaduct complete with arches with businesses and garages occupying them while a sheer rock face rises above the opposite side. 

[KeithHC]

Errr not entirely correct Clive.

Paddington is very definitely in a cutting both at the throat and concourse end and is below the local ground level till at least Ladbroke Grove. A number of the London termini took advantage of topography so Marylebone is at ground level at the concourse end but in a slight cutting by the throat (but it still passes over the Regent's Canal) Charing Cross and Victoria both have street level access at the concourse but used the fall of land towards the river to cross it. Hammersmith (Met/GW) is at street level at the concourse end but I'm not sure if it relies on topography or a gradient to climb to viaduct height above street level.

It's quite interesting to explore the approaches to the London Termini in Google Street View but so much development has taken place on the site of goods and other yards that its often difficult to identify the original lie of  the land before the railway arrived.

There probably is scope for an interesting change of level with the throat above a street level that rises  to reach the same height as the railway at the concourse end.

 

The most extreme example I know though is the St. Paul Terminus in Lyon where one side of the station is on a viaduct complete with arches with businesses and garages occupying them while a sheer rock face rises above the opposite side. 

As does Brighton also.

 

Keith HC, Dursley

[Clive Mortimore]

Errr not entirely correct Clive.

Paddington is very definitely in a cutting both at the throat and concourse end and is below the local ground level till at least Ladbroke Grove. A number of the London termini took advantage of topography so Marylebone is at ground level at the concourse end but in a slight cutting by the throat (but it still passes over the Regent's Canal) Charing Cross and Victoria both have street level access at the concourse but used the fall of land towards the river to cross it. Hammersmith (Met/GW) is at street level at the concourse end but I'm not sure if it relies on topography or a gradient to climb to viaduct height above street level.

It's quite interesting to explore the approaches to the London Termini in Google Street View but so much development has taken place on the site of goods and other yards that its often difficult to identify the original lie of  the land before the railway arrived.

There probably is scope for an interesting change of level with the throat above a street level that rises  to reach the same height as the railway at the concourse end.

 

The most extreme example I know though is the St. Paul Terminus in Lyon where one side of the station is on a viaduct complete with arches with businesses and garages occupying them while a sheer rock face rises above the opposite side. 

Hi David

 

You forgot the concourse at Kings Cross and Euston are both are at street level, and the same street.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Victoria is a bit of an odd case. Street level at concourse end but in cutting for much of its length. But then the tracks have to rise sharply to cross Grosvenor Bridge as Victoria is actually sited well below high-water level of the Thames.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Identical track layout, but visually I know which I prefer.

 

Absolutely - the first one. But that is so much better than the CJF Minories in that you could justify that layout by the topography (i.e. if there is a hill or a river in the right place, a railway engineer would have built it like that). CJF has unnecessary curves where there should/would be straight track

 

From a modelling perspective, it may be awkward in that it takes more floorspace in an average room. Oddly enough, I have drawn out plans for a layout similar to that without ever thinking of it as a "Minories". Perhaps that is because I had the platforms to the RH end on my version?

Edited July 12, 2015 by Joseph_Pestell

[Joseph_Pestell]

Wow, both Saffron Street and Bradfield Gloucester Square are truly inpiring layouts! Dave, I see what you mean. Seeing those trains run over the roofs of those terraced houses: great! Still I think in my case a cutting would be far more practical as it can be easily folded and stored away. I really like that aspect of CJF's original plan.

 

Jesse, You can still fold it in the same way. But the woodwork involved is a little bit more complicated, with more hinges.

[edcayton]

What was the name of the 0 gauge terminus on an embankment? Had sidings at ground level.Was built by the MRJ team IIRC.

 

Ed

[KeithHC]

Inkerman street

 

Keith HC

[Pacific231G]

Hi David

 

You forgot the concourse at Kings Cross and Euston are both are at street level, and the same street.

No. I wasn't going through all of them, just a few that struck me as interesting. I am though particularly familiar with the topography round Paddington as I once lived in a flat in Westbourne Terrace. Nowadays of course you get to experience all the changes of level there when trying to get from the suburban platforms 12-14  to the new Hammersmith and City concourse. That used to be a quick hop over the the footbridge but, unless I've missed a handy short cut, now involves leaving the station proper at canal basin level and trudging past the taxi ranks. Presumably all that will be simplified when CrossRail opens in three years time- something I'm looking forward to. I'm not sure whether the short platforms 13 and 14 at Paddington - the old Bishop's Bridge station I think- will then become redundant.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Pacific231G

[edcayton]

Inkerman street

 

Keith HC

 

Worth a look at google images

 

Ed

[kevinlms]

Absolutely - the first one. But that is so much better than the CJF Minories in that you could justify that layout by the topography (i.e. if there is a hill or a river in the right place, a railway engineer would have built it like that). CJF has unnecessary curves where there should/would be straight track

 

From a modelling perspective, it may be awkward in that it takes more floorspace in an average room. Oddly enough, I have drawn out plans for a layout similar to that without ever thinking of it as a "Minories". Perhaps that is because I had the platforms to the RH end on my version?

Someone else here said the he built a mirror image version & he said it didn't work correctly.

[Pacific231G]

Someone else here said the he built a mirror image version & he said it didn't work correctly.

I read that too but never understood why he thought it shortened the effective platform lengths. It's true that for left hand running the mirrored throat ends with a facing rather than a trailing crossover but one of the two crossovers is bound to be facing and each platform is still the same length and still has access to both main line tracks.  The only possible downside I can see is that if the convention is followed of making the non island platform the principal departure platform with some of the station buildings alongside it then it's probably better for that to be on the same side as the outbound "down" (if the terminus is in London) main line.

[Pacific231G]

Identical track layout, but visually I know which I prefer.

The first one clearly but there is another advantage of the "Minories" arrangement. To join two or three platforms to both sides of a double track main line you need a minimum length of four turnouts to make up two crossovers (the entrance points for a third platform can be tucked behind the final crossover points so it doesn't add to the overall length).

 

For a conventional straight approach, both crossovers involve a reverse curves so both have to be long enough for a train to pass over them without buffer locking or an absurdly large sideways movement between the coach ends (especially if they have corridor connections).

The genius of the Minories approach is that this only applies to the two back to back points in the middle and there is only one route, between the non island "down" platform no.1 and the "up" side of the main line that involves an immediate reverse curve. Where there is no immediate reverse curve you can use sharper points without buffer locking so the outer points can be shorter.

 

I've just done some experiments with this using main line coaches (Jouef H0 OCEMs 25cms long over buffers fitted with Kadee couplers and Roco Bruhats) with standard medium and long Peco points.

 

I found that to avoid apparent buffer locking the pointwork for a "Minories" throat needs a length of 95cms but a straight throat requires 115cms. Since I'm planning on metre long baseboards using "Minories" would enable all the main pointwork to fit comfortably on a single board.

 

For the straight throat, I needed to make up both crossovers with long turnouts but for "Minories" only the centre points needed to be long (nominally 5 ft radius) and the outer points could all be medium (nominally 3 ft radius)

 

I did also try the Minories plan made up entirely from left and right three foot radius points as in most of Cyril Freezer's published plans for it. Though this was only 87cms long and most of the routes through it were alright, on the most critical route (between platform no 1 and the "up" line there would have been considerable buffer locking and the corridor connections were displaced by about half their width.

 

Making up the straight throat entirely with three foot radius points was as horrible as I'd expected with coaches lurching over the crossovers and the passengers probably calling their 1:87 scale lawyers.

 

Making up the Minories scheme entirely with long points gave the smoothest results of all and the train snaked through it in a very convincing way but it was also 115cms long which unfortunately is a bit too long for me. 

Edited July 13, 2015 by Pacific231G

[Karhedron]

I also think it unlikely there would a refuelling point there at all.  I can't think of any urban termini that had such facilities, the only terminus with a refuelling point that springs to mind is Buxton, but that is hardly urban and that facility was to support freight traffic, not passenger. (I'm happy to be proved wrong on that point if anyone knows of termini with refuelling points).  Most locos and units would be refuelled at their home depot and have enough fuel to get there and back. 

Marylebone had refueling facilities just beyond the station throat but that was a proper DMU depot rather than just a refueling point.

 

Edited July 13, 2015 by Karhedron

[Zomboid]

It's not refuelling since the trains are electric, but there are a couple of stabling sidings just outside Waterloo. Would be visible from the platforms if not for the curvature.