CJ Freezer Crutched Friars (Or a variation thereof!)

[JoeFerrito]

Hi all,

 

Longtime reader of the "Theory of General Minories" thread and always wanted to build some sort of steam era urban terminus, both as a distraction from my own freelanced American modeling and to help convince some of my friends on this side of the Atlantic that I'm not crazy for my enthusiasm for British steam! For a long time I've contemplated a Minories or some variation thereof, but nothing ever really caught my eye until I started burning through the blue CJ Freezer PSL track plan book and came across #43, Crutched Friars. To my eye, for some reason, this looks a little bit nicer than Minories, and it's piqued my curiosity, to the point that I'm having to restrain myself from plonking down the money on some Peco track and wood for some baseboards right this minute! I've always had an interest in early BR (and I've already got some early-crest locos & coaches) so I'm thinking of setting this up as some sort of London Midland Region commuter terminus.

 

Guess I just wanted to ask a couple of questions to the general audience before I really kick off this project:

 

• Has anyone ever taken a serious look at/built this plan before and has any tips to offer?
• Are there any obvious flaws with the track plan/any changes you might make to the pointwork to make the station operate more smoothly/interestingly?
• What sort of traffic would a station like this potentially see/what prototype stations could I look at for some inspiration? Obviously there would be the commuter services, but I'm not sure what else I could theoretically work into it, especially with the included goods shed
• What's a good place to start looking for how I might signal a station like this?

 

Again, I apologize if these are stupid questions – I'm fairly serious about my US modeling but as far as British Railways go, I'm definitely more on the amateur side of the equation. Thanks again!

 

Joey

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by JoeFerrito

[sb67]

Hi Joey, there's no such thing as a stupid question. 

I like the look of the plan and very interested to see how you get on, but I'm afraid I can't answer all your questions. 

I would imagine along with commuter traffic, both DMU or Loco hauled, you could run parcels trains into the station or goods shed.

The goods shed could probably have vans or open wagons depending on the traffic. 

You would need a station pilot to carry out the shunting manoeuvres as there's no run round loop.

You could google a layout called South Pimlico, which, although it's a through station is urban and has a warehouse next to it that might give you some ideas. 

Hope that's a start, good luck and I'm sure you'll get loads more advice.

 

 

[ITG]

I guess you need to be careful with any track layout changes, that they don’t alter the character of the CJF original.

Much depends on what you plan to run on it, but there is nowhere for a station pilot to draw back a train, other than the main line. Not a major issue maybe, but of course if you introduced a run-round crossover at the end of the longer platform roads, you could have the option of your locos running round the train.

[Miss Prism]

Typical Freezer 'got to have a Goods Shed somewhere' idea, but it lacks credibility for me, and is certainly a nightmare to work - any goods shunting clogs up two platforms, and trying to get a brake van on the end of an outgoing train is just about impossible. If it was just a parcels depot, it becomes slightly more feasible, but with 4 platform faces, why the need for a parcels depot anyway?

 

[Harlequin]

CJF says that the minimum radius for this plan is 1m and refers to medium radius turnouts but that conflicts with the use of Peco double slips, which are 610mm "Small" radius. The Peco slips thus cause some quite violent turns, especially for large express locos and long carriages.

 

You might be able to use the new British Finescale slips in place of the Peco parts but they are longer and the angles would need careful jiggling.

 

Call the platform lines P1 to P4 starting from the bottom so that the numbers align with Minories, the longer "main line" platforms are P1 and P2 and the shorter "local" platforms are P3 and P4.

 

If you wanted to use the station for intensive commuter traffic there's a pinch point at the first, trailing crossover where departing traffic from P2, P3 and P4 has to crossover onto the departing main line, preventing simultaneous arrivals. But if the traffic intensity is not that great maybe that's not a problem. (You could insert a crossover in the wiggle between P1 and P2 to allow P2 departures while trains arrive into P3 and P4.)

 

CJF says that the goods yard would handle van traffic but it would be either a pain to shunt or very interesting, depending on your outlook! 😄 With no run round in the station, and assuming steam era operations, the station pilot would have to remove the brake van from arriving goods trains. (Where would it put it? At the stop blocks of P3 or P4 might be OK operationally, I'm not sure.) And the pilot might have to do some preparatory shunting between goods trains to make the exchange of vans efficient and avoid blocking the arrival line during shunting.

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Harlequin

[Pandora]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

CJF says that the minimum radius for this plan is 1m and refers to medium radius turnouts but that conflicts with the use of Peco double slips, which are 610mm "Small" radius. The Peco slips thus cause some quite violent turns, especially for large express locos and long carriages.

 

However, you might be able to use the new British Finescale slips in place of the Peco parts but they are longer and the angles would need careful jiggling.

 

Call the platform lines P1 to P4 starting from the bottom so that the numbers align with Minories, the longer "main line" platforms are P1 and P2 and the shorter "local" platforms are P3 and P4.

 

If you wanted to use the station for intensive commuter traffic there's a pinch point at the first, trailing crossover where departing traffic from P2, P3 and P4 has to crossover onto the departing main line, preventing simultaneous arrivals. But if the traffic intensity is not that great maybe that's not a problem. (You could insert a crossover in the wiggle between P1 and P2 to allow P2 departures while trains arrive into P3 and P4.)

 

CJF says that the goods yard would handle van traffic but it would be either a pain to shunt or very interesting, depending on your outlook! 😄 With no run round in the station, and assuming steam era operations, the station pilot would have to remove the brake van from arriving goods trains. (Where would it put it? At the stop blocks of P3 or P4 might be OK operationally, I'm not sure.) And the pilot might have to do some preparatory shunting between goods trains to make the exchange of vans efficient and avoid blocking the arrival line during shunting.

 

The fix for the issue of shunting is a crossover to make a runround loop (at the buffer stops)  between  the two platform roads on the goods shed side of the layout. London Bridge had such a crossover between platforms 13 and 12 to release locos which had delivered the newspaper trains. 

If the crossover is installed, then I would reposition the Station Buliding to the other side, and shorten/lengthen platforms as required.

Another point to consider is coupling and uncoupling,  with an overall roof, how will locos at the buffer stops be uncoupled from their coaches or vans?

Edited September 13, 2022 by Pandora

[Nearholmer]

As regards the goods facility that so piques Miss Prism, I would cite the Met facility at Vine Street, the SR Continental depot at Ewer Street, the heap of depots at Goodman’s Yard and Royal Mint Steet near Fenchurch St, and a few others - ‘implausible’ goods depots did exist, with all the attendant awkward shunting.

 

As regards non-suburban traffic, a useful one for an LMS terminus might be the Tilbury Riverside Boat Trains, which ran in fact from St  Pancras, but might have run from here. They were very downbeat trains, hauled by very downbeat engines, 4F etc, but at least they had corridor coaches.

 

Newspaper trains are another good one, sometimes combined with railway parcels and Royal Mail traffic in the same train, but designated vans.

 

Personally, I’ve never liked this version of Minories quite so much as the more compact ones and would probably ditch the station building (move it off-scene) to lengthen those platforms, putting in a crossover to reduce the shunting grief, maybe even get rid of the fourth platform altogether, just use that road as runaround and ECS siding.

 

A release crossover on one of the pairs of roads would help a lot with off-peak goods/parcels/newspaper train moves.

 

Although it was all ‘the other way up’, with the line on a viaduct, I think photos of the throat at Fenchurch Street could provide a lot of inspiration for a layout like this, because it was hemmed-in by huge goods depots (well, the ones that hadn’t been bombed flat by the Luftwaffe), and really cramped, signal-box spanning the tracks etc. Crutched Friars is actually a street in that very area, so CJF must have had all this in mind. If you wanted to go really made and install OLE, you could model it at the time of electrification, when the LT&S service used a mix of steam, diesel (Brush Tye 2) and electric trains.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Michael Hodgson]

My immediate thought on looking at this was how do you uncouple arriving trains under the roof.  With the station Building where it is all you don't even need a footbridge, as access is via the platform ends. 

 

I'm not keen on 3 of the 4 platforms being accessed via double slips.  If the two crossovers beteen the mains were transposed the lower slip could be repalced by a simple point.

 

There doesn't appear to be any road access to the goods shed.

 

What do the triangle and double-ended arrow below the layout signify?

 

[Nearholmer]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

There doesn't appear to be any road access to the goods shed.

 

Vine Street was just like this, in a brick-lined cutting, and the road access was at high level, all the goods going up and down in lifts. The other depots in the Farringdon area were similar.

 

The Fenchurch Street throat depots had rail access at viaduct level, but extended way above, and (naturally) down to the ground where roads access existed. Ewer Street was similar.

 

I think modellers tend to think ‘rural goods shed’, but these urban ones were very different, using mechanical handling of either the goods, or entire wagons, much more. This is the basement of Whitecross Street MR depot ….. nearly all the goods handling took place upstairs, and the visible track at railway level was not much different from what CJF shows in this plan.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Nearholmer

[RobinofLoxley]

Michael I'm sure that they have heard of kadee uncoupling magnets in the US.

 

Great to have another minories type thread, look forward to the discussions on page 100. Thanks for that Joe!

 

Also no reason why run- arounds cant be incorporated especially on the longer platforms. 

 

Joe, for signalling you need to decide the location and time the layout is set, and then signalling can be discussed. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by RobinofLoxley

[Nearholmer]

Have a look at the god-awful P&C in this photo of the throat at Fenchurch Street!

 

http://disused-stations.org.uk/f/fenchurch_street/index4.shtml

[Pandora]

It might be too much of a revision, I would lose the bottom platform but keep the road which becomes a siding, the lines would be shifted downwards, a centre road  (non platform)  added between the  upper platforms. the centre road would store parcels trains and a second place for station pilot as used to occur at Liverpool Street. this would give more tracks and two carriage /empty stock /  parcel vans  sidings for stabling  and an extra dimension for shunting by the station pilot loco.

[Michael Hodgson]

53 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Michael I'm sure that they have heard of kadee uncoupling magnets in the US

 

Indeed, but I don't think they were avilable over here when Cyril Freezer was drawing up plans.

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

What do the triangle and double-ended arrow below the layout signify?

According to page 10 of the book in question, the triangle signifies "Preferred operation point" and the double arrow signifies "Optional section", i.e. it can be omitted if space is tight.

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Indeed, but I don't think they were avilable over here when Cyril Freezer was drawing up plans.

That plan book was published in 1988, so I think they probably were. In any case, as the saying goes, other auto-couplers are available.

[The Stationmaster]

I think you need first of all to think very carefully about the period you think the layout would portray.  The reason for saying that is that it would then help to validate, or otherwise, the track layout and its various 'awkward' elements.  Tight curvature through slips was a feature, with very limited speeds, of numerous older track layouts at termini, particularly urban termini.  Awkward access to goods depots - as noted. by 'Nearholmer' was not unusual in such places and of course passenger operations changed over the years so we tend to look at them perhaps through the wrong end of the telescope if we see freight working as impeding them.

 

The big failings of the layout - which certainly aren't 'no go' shortcomings are in my view fairly limited in number, viz :-

1. Restricted capability for parallel moves of arriving and departing passenger trains (which could be improved should space permit by adding another crossover), and

2.  The need to use a turnover engine (or shunt release - for which the layout is not really suitable)  for every arriving passenger train which implies the station would in reality be served mainly, if not entirely, by local/suburban services.  And there is only the one engine siding.

The few longer distance trains would come in empty from carriage sidings and would be taken empty to those sidings after passenger have disembarked.

3. Shunting the goods shed, as noted above, effectively blocks two platforms but in reality - so what?  Here we need to think railway instead of thinking model railway so inwards wagons would arrive in the early part of the morning before passenger traffic gets busy and outward clearances would take place in the evening after the passenger peak although possibly before it for more urgent traffic.   There might be a daytime shunt but that would be halfway through the day when passenger traffic is less busy.

But the big freight problem will be dealing with the brakevan - easy enough on arrival of the freight trip  although there are only two goods roads to shunt but quite how it could be  got to the back of a departing freight trip is something of a puzzle unless a second engine is used.  And that in turn implies some sort of station pilot.

 

That leads to another area - which might suit lots of modellers - because the engine working could fee get quite complex and require quite a few locos.  Either great fun or a right pain in the rear end.

 

Signalling it is pretty straightforward - provided you understand British signalling methods!  

 

So yes - it is a usable track layout with some operational challenges although I sincerely doubt it would fit in the area CJF drew, especially the approach throat trackwork where I would use Peco templates as a simple way of finding out how much space it really needs .  It;s suitable only for steam era or early (i.e. green) diesel power and early DMUs because a layout like this would change considerably as the diesel age developed.

[Tappa]

I built a version of Minories a few years back. The idea was to use as much RTR stuff as possible to show what could be done. Layout was called Somers Town and featured in September 2007 Railway Modeller. Mine was based around the early/mid 1970's and used cl. 31 & mk1 suburbans as well as parcels traffic. It worked pretty well and was fun to operate. It never really got finished and is something I would like to have another crack at.

 

regards

Jeff

[Nearholmer]

Probably not relevant unless you intend to model pre-grouping or early grouping, but the number of trips to busy urban goods depots could be very great, partly because train lengths had to be kept short due to all the shunting challenges, partly because some of the depots simply couldn’t accommodate very many wagons without turning into a sort of Rubik’s Cube puzzle. There is a very good book published by the GNR society IIRC which goes into all this, and  I seem to recall that the Fenchurch St approaches, which hosted six goods depots (2 x GER, NLR/LNWR, LT&S, MR, GNR), saw something like 24 goods trains in each direction spread across day and night, these mostly being trips from the big marshalling yards “on the fringes”. 
 

Teplicating that sort of operation would involve a different layout though, and I seem to remember that Mr Rice proposed one in one of his books.

[Clive Mortimore]

31 minutes ago, Tappa said:

I built a version of Minories a few years back. The idea was to use as much RTR stuff as possible to show what could be done. Layout was called Somers Town and featured in September 2007 Railway Modeller. Mine was based around the early/mid 1970's and used cl. 31 & mk1 suburbans as well as parcels traffic. It worked pretty well and was fun to operate. It never really got finished and is something I would like to have another crack at.

 

regards

Jeff

Hi Tappa

 

I agree a basic Minories type layout is great to operate. I was building one until we moved five years ago. I would go out to the garage to do some scenery and I would say to myself, "Driving one train should be OK" next thing I knew it was well past my bedtime and no scenery had be done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above was using Peco points, including a double slip and single slip, no problems with running.

 

If you don't like Peco slips you can always make your own.

 

 

All the points needed for a simple Minories as one unit.

 

[Steven B]

Are you planning on building it as per the plan or have you got space to make it wider & longer?

 

Made wider you'd have room for a release road shared between the two southern most platforms. You could do the same with the shorter northern pair but keeping them as suburban platforms without would make for more interest.

i.e. expresses arrive in the southern most platforms, engines are released, serviced and returned from whence they came with the train they arrived with. For suburban trains, three locos could run two trains for a more intensive service.

 

The current goods yard looks like a typical CJF box-ticking exercise (the engine shed and turn-table are missing for a full house!).  Increasing the length would be nice, as would increasing it to three or four roads wide. I'd be tempted to replace the small goods shed with a larger rail served warehouse - a bit like Huddersfield. You could add a wagon hoist for extra interest. Access to and from the yard is tricky with the current plan. Making the station into a through-line rather than terminus and allowing access only from one direction would be more prototypical.

 

Steven B.

[JoeFerrito]

Thanks for all the responses so far!

 

I'm envisioning this set sometime in the 50s, preferably on the Midland Region but not entirely sure where – London or something else.

 

As far as available physical space, I've got roughly 16x2 feet to play with, though I could stretch it to 18. I'm still planning on designing it to be able to fold up or disassemble into sections for a move since I spend about 3 months out of the year in a different house. I should say that I'm hoping that length would include the fiddle yard.

 

 

Joey

Edited September 13, 2022 by JoeFerrito

[Flying Pig]

My turn 😀  I think this would give you most of the parallel moves, but it doesn't avoid reverse curves very well, one of the strengths of Minories.  I'd go with the extended upper platforms too, possibly with a release crossover in P4.

 

That's a single slip in front of the box, the rest being plain points and a diamond. 

 

[JoeFerrito]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

My turn 😀  I think this would give you most of the parallel moves, but it doesn't avoid reverse curves very well, one of the strengths of Minories.  I'd go with the extended upper platforms too, possibly with a release crossover in P4.

 

That's a single slip in front of the box, the rest being plain points and a diamond. 

 

 

Now that's intriguing! Seems to fit within the space if we call it a 12 foot board – I agree with removing that station building. Seems like all the pointwork in the throat can fit on a 6 foot board, which is a bit longer than I'd prefer but should be able to fit. And then the other 6 feet for the platforms could probably be split into two as well... I like that! As you say, it does have the problem of the reverse curves, but that's probably not insurmountable.

 

[JoeFerrito]

Because I can't leave well enough alone, thought I'd doodle with the idea of expanding the southern platforms a bit to allow a release road down the center. We're probably reaching the point of this not really being the original plan anymore, but to be honest I care less about that than having something that'll be interesting to play with, and theoretical express platforms could justify a Jubilee or Patriot or two...

 

[D9020 Nimbus]

If you're interested in urban layouts, it might be worth finding a copy of Iain Rice's Designs for urban layouts, published by Atlantic. His track plans are rather different in style than CJFs but much more likely to fit in the specified area! One of the plans is called Harestone, based on the prototype suburban terminus at Caterham.

 

The nearest prototype equivalent to something like Crutched Friars, apart from Fenchurch Street, would be something like Birmingham Moor Street. It had a run-round facility, but using a traverser rather than pointwork. The goods facility was, I believe, beneath the passenger station and accessed using a hoist. I think in urban areas generally, the goods facilities — except perhaps for parcels — would either use this type of idea or be on a separate site altogether.