Theory of General Minories

[Pacific231G]

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

No. No. No. I don't want to think about this phrase.

 

The exit passageways from Roman arenas and stadiums were called vomitoria...

Which simply means a wide corridor. I believe the Latin root of the word "vomere" means to discharge rapidly which could refer to many things, possibly digestive, but more often  getting the crowds out of a theatre or amphitheatre via the vomitoria. That doesn't imply any particular relaationship between that and the contents of anyone's stomach. There is a myth about Romans throwing up between courses at feasts in order to eat more and using a room called a vomitorium to do so but that's a complete myth. Seneca, did write of slaves specifically employed to wipe up 'the leavings of drunks' but that unpleasant task is all too familiar to anyone holding a particularly boozy party. The abbreviated term "vom" meaning an entrance or exit either for the audience or the actors is still used in the theatre. It has nothing to do with the word you get when you add -it to it.

[Nearholmer]

Commuters are obedient animals, I know because I was one, so my guess is that on arrival in the morning rush everyone piled out on both sides, but that in the evening everyone went meekly to a particular platform-face to board. They may have locked the doors on the other side until just before departure to prevent any tricky business.

[RJS1977]

22 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

The Greenford Branch bay (between the Central Line platforms) at Greenford has platform faces on both sides but only one is used. The trouble is there is no sign to indicate which side! 

 

Similarly the Met side of Uxbridge has platform faces both sides but doors only open on the north side (i.e. the side furthest from the Piccadilly line platform) so you can't go on to the platform between the two lines and wait to see which is first. 

 

It also makes it more difficult to change between the Picc and Met at Uxbridge, but there won't be many people wanting to do that, except for Tube Challenge nutters like me!

 

By contrast, doors open on both sides in some of the platforms at Morden and it is possible to change from one platform to another by going through a train! 

[St Enodoc]

36 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Similarly the Met side of Uxbridge has platform faces both sides but doors only open on the north side (i.e. the side furthest from the Piccadilly line platform) so you can't go on to the platform between the two lines and wait to see which is first. 

 

It also makes it more difficult to change between the Picc and Met at Uxbridge, but there won't be many people wanting to do that, except for Tube Challenge nutters like me!

 

By contrast, doors open on both sides in some of the platforms at Morden and it is possible to change from one platform to another by going through a train! 

A rose-red city, half as Golders Green...

[Mike_Walker]

On 07/07/2023 at 12:08, Pacific231G said:

The Greenford Branch bay (between the Central Line platforms) at Greenford has platform faces on both sides but only one is used. The trouble is there is no sign to indicate which side! 

It will always be the north side, opposite the London-bound LU platform.  This will be to enable the driver to monitor the doors by means of the platform mirror, the service is DOO.

[Pacific231G]

15 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Commuters are obedient animals, I know because I was one, so my guess is that on arrival in the morning rush everyone piled out on both sides, but that in the evening everyone went meekly to a particular platform-face to board. They may have locked the doors on the other side until just before departure to prevent any tricky business.

Obedient or creatures of habit?

One effect of the rationalisation of Paris Bastille was that trains departed in standard sequences, the first ones going fast for part of the line then stopping to cover different stations and the final ones covering the inner stops. The result was that, for the evening peak, commuters always knew which platform their train would be on. Given the cramped terminus' rather narrow concourse that saved a lot of milling around. With non push-pull loco hauled  trains that also meant that the evolutions needed to get locos bringing in trains (service or VV Voiture Vide ie ECS)  to the front of subsequent trains would have repeated a number of times during the busy period. I've never really understood why that sort of pattern was so relatively unknown for British commuter termini. Having to wait on the concourse at Paddington to find out which platform the Greenford train (before it was truncated to West Ealing) would be leaving from, usually, but not always, followed by a mad dash to platforms 13 and 14 at the far end of the station, was a source of stress every time I used that service.  

1 minute ago, Mike_Walker said:

On 07/07/2023 at 12:08, Pacific231G said:

    The Greenford Branch bay (between the Central Line platforms) at Greenford has platform faces on both sides but only one is used. The trouble is there is no sign to indicate which side!I

It will always be the north side, opposite the London-bound LU platform.  This will be to enable the driver to monitor the doors by means of the platform mirror, the service is DOO.

I learnt that fairly quickly but it's not obvious and for anyone not used to it there's no indication of which side to go and no reason why there should not be.

[Annie]

In the 1995 edition of Model Railway Trackplans C.J.F. published another Minories variant which he named 'Crutched Friars' (Plan 43).  My own 'Minories' effort does have some elements of this with the goods shed in the right hand bottom corner, but I have toyed with the idea of using this plan and making it a through station instead of a terminus.

The double headed arrow indicates the section of the layout that could be removed or made removeable to allow it to fit into a restricted space.

 

[Satan's Goldfish]

I did say i'd have a play about with it following my last post, so here goes;

 

 

Ramp road down to goods shed from over bridge.

 

double slip in goods yard to provide a short head shunt and extra siding for domestic coal supplies (with it's own access road down from the town above). Goods still arrive in a passenger platform outside of peak times and are shunted across.

 

Turnover loco facilities in front of the 'rest of the world' tunnel, could cover coal, ash, water, and possibly a turntable in the end but that could be very rule 1 given the location.

 

Milk platform has been moved to a kick back location from platforms 2 and 3. it could have been just platform 3 as per other goods versions of Minories but i went with the version pictured instead as it would have created a reverse curve due to the centre road i've added. The other end of the milk platform leads direct into the loco facilities, if there's no milk wagons in the platform then that line can be used to move some of the turnover locos with out fouling arrivals to platform 1.

 

Centre road between platforms 1 and 2, (the loco release isn't necessary) can be used for carriage storage outside peak services. accessed by a single slip in the departure direction only so it doesn't have direct access to loco facilities for added operational interest.

 

 

And discuss!

[RobinofLoxley]

23 hours ago, Annie said:

In the 1995 edition of Model Railway Trackplans C.J.F. published another Minories variant which he named 'Crutched Friars' (Plan 43).  My own 'Minories' effort does have some elements of this with the goods shed in the right hand bottom corner, but I have toyed with the idea of using this plan and making it a through station instead of a terminus.

The double headed arrow indicates the section of the layout that could be removed or made removeable to allow it to fit into a restricted space.

 

Theres quite a long (but not Minories long) thread on this plan somewhere, about 2 yrs ago I would guess.

[Annie]

14 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

There's quite a long (but not Minories long) thread on this plan somewhere, about 2 yrs ago I would guess.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/174197-cj-freezer-crutched-friars-or-a-variation-thereof/#comment-4927171

 

Amazingly the thread seems to have pictures that have survived the recent Great Devastation.

[Flying Pig]

17 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Theres quite a long (but not Minories long) thread on this plan somewhere, about 2 yrs ago I would guess.

 

Here:

 

 

[RJS1977]

2 hours ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

I did say i'd have a play about with it following my last post, so here goes;

 

 

 

Centre road between platforms 1 and 2, (the loco release isn't necessary) can be used for carriage storage outside peak services. accessed by a single slip in the departure direction only so it doesn't have direct access to loco facilities for added operational interest.

 

 

And discuss!

 

I have mixed feelings about the phrase "for added operational interest". Railway companies didn't make their trackplans awkward to operate for the sake of it - extra movements took time and used extra coal and water, and also got in the way of passenger movements, though against that there is a need to balance the cost of installing and maintaining more track and signalling equipment to reduce operational awkwardness.

 

Personally I'd replace the point just above the signal box with a double slip connected to the centre road, and put the milk platform on its own short siding. 

 

That way, not only can locos coming off the centre road access the loco facilities without having to jiggle around on the main line, but coaches can be shunted from the centre road to the lower two platforms without impeding on the upper (Down?) line.

 

Incidentally Aberystwyth station had an interesting move that can be replicated on this plan. The York parcels (passenger train with a parcels van at each end) would arrive in Platform 3. The station pilot would shunt the rear parcels van into the short siding at the end of the centre road, shunt the passenger coaches to a different platform, then shunt the other parcels van to join its partner. The train engine would then run to the loco shed and a different loco would take the coaches out on their next working. Later in the day of course, the whole process would be reversed.

[Satan's Goldfish]

22 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

I have mixed feelings about the phrase "for added operational interest". Railway companies didn't make their trackplans awkward to operate for the sake of it - extra movements took time and used extra coal and water, and also got in the way of passenger movements, though against that there is a need to balance the cost of installing and maintaining more track and signalling equipment to reduce operational awkwardness.

 

Personally I'd replace the point just above the signal box with a double slip connected to the centre road, and put the milk platform on its own short siding. 

 

That way, not only can locos coming off the centre road access the loco facilities without having to jiggle around on the main line, but coaches can be shunted from the centre road to the lower two platforms without impeding on the upper (Down?) line.

 

Incidentally Aberystwyth station had an interesting move that can be replicated on this plan. The York parcels (passenger train with a parcels van at each end) would arrive in Platform 3. The station pilot would shunt the rear parcels van into the short siding at the end of the centre road, shunt the passenger coaches to a different platform, then shunt the other parcels van to join its partner. The train engine would then run to the loco shed and a different loco would take the coaches out on their next working. Later in the day of course, the whole process would be reversed.

 

I'm not much of a fan of the centre road in the plan anyway, especially with the loco release, as it kind of defeats some of the point of the Minories setting. I've only added it in because I was being a bit lazy and adding all thoughts onto 1 drawing. It would function better if it were just carriage storage, no release points; station pilot can just shunt carriages to it rather than another platform.

 

If the centre road is removed completely then the standard minories layout could be used with the milk platform only accessible as a kick back siding from platform 3 (no access to loco facilities) which was my original thought when relocating it to create an easy turnover locomotive siding.

 

With regards to track plans and operational awkwardness, I work on the theory that if it's less awkward and disruptive than Norwich Thorpe pre 1987 resignalling then the plan is acceptable  

[Flying Pig]

4 hours ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

I did say i'd have a play about with it following my last post, so here goes;

 

 

Ramp road down to goods shed from over bridge.

 

double slip in goods yard to provide a short head shunt and extra siding for domestic coal supplies (with it's own access road down from the town above). Goods still arrive in a passenger platform outside of peak times and are shunted across.

 

Turnover loco facilities in front of the 'rest of the world' tunnel, could cover coal, ash, water, and possibly a turntable in the end but that could be very rule 1 given the location.

 

Milk platform has been moved to a kick back location from platforms 2 and 3. it could have been just platform 3 as per other goods versions of Minories but i went with the version pictured instead as it would have created a reverse curve due to the centre road i've added. The other end of the milk platform leads direct into the loco facilities, if there's no milk wagons in the platform then that line can be used to move some of the turnover locos with out fouling arrivals to platform 1.

 

Centre road between platforms 1 and 2, (the loco release isn't necessary) can be used for carriage storage outside peak services. accessed by a single slip in the departure direction only so it doesn't have direct access to loco facilities for added operational interest.

 

 

And discuss!

 

 

I think this one would work better with the railway on a viaduct and roads below.  No ramps needed for access: road entrance to the goods shed is at basement level; coal discharged via drops (see e.g. Halifax).

 

It's verging on the overstuffed though.

[Lacathedrale]

11 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

I have mixed feelings about the phrase "for added operational interest". Railway companies didn't make their trackplans awkward to operate for the sake of it - extra movements took time and used extra coal and water, and also got in the way of passenger movements, though against that there is a need to balance the cost of installing and maintaining more track and signalling equipment to reduce operational awkwardness.

 

It shouldn't be forgotten that pre-grouping companies despite being rather parsiminmous in the most traditional free capitalist style did often provision trackwork to permit parallel moves even if they were infrequent. For example, a suggestion in my track planning thread on this Minories variation suggested the connection in light blue, to release P2 from the tyranny of the occupancy/usage of P3.

 

 

I have highlighted in pink my additions to this plan, I felt like a place to marshal carriages on a passenger-oriented plan would give reason for a pilot loco and some shunting on-layout rather than an in-out shuttle service, and the addition of a short runaround for van/parcel/newspaper traffic would be handy.

 

The 'old turntable road' is in my imagining the location of a one time mid 1800's loco turntable, or a series of those wagon turntables adjacent a warehouse - used now only as a catch-point for the runaround/carriage sidings. In a future L-shaped expansion it may well be reinstated as a proper turntable.

 

[johnhutnick]

I am in the US.  We as commuters do not have "embarking" and "alighting", we just get on and get off.

On the PATH(Port Authority Trans Hudson) line, or on some NYC subway line, when a train comes into a station, the doors are opened on one side for everyone to get off.  Commuters on the other platform waiting to get on are lined up waiting for those doors to open(so as to get a seat).

I am not sure that I would ever know what was a "north" platform.

[RobinofLoxley]

6 hours ago, johnhutnick said:

I am in the US.  We as commuters do not have "embarking" and "alighting", we just get on and get off.

On the PATH(Port Authority Trans Hudson) line, or on some NYC subway line, when a train comes into a station, the doors are opened on one side for everyone to get off.  Commuters on the other platform waiting to get on are lined up waiting for those doors to open(so as to get a seat).

I am not sure that I would ever know what was a "north" platform.

Our modern lines such as the Elizabeth line under London have that arrangement with 2 sets of doors - like Singapore and Hong Kong. Unfortunately our older infrastructure can be quirky in some places however the majority have only one option for access.

[Pacific231G]

On 10/07/2023 at 08:39, Lacathedrale said:

 

It shouldn't be forgotten that pre-grouping companies despite being rather parsiminmous in the most traditional free capitalist style did often provision trackwork to permit parallel moves even if they were infrequent. For example, a suggestion in my track planning thread on this Minories variation suggested the connection in light blue, to release P2 from the tyranny of the occupancy/usage of P3.

 

 

I have highlighted in pink my additions to this plan, I felt like a place to marshal carriages on a passenger-oriented plan would give reason for a pilot loco and some shunting on-layout rather than an in-out shuttle service, and the addition of a short runaround for van/parcel/newspaper traffic would be handy.

 

 

 

Most of our terminus plans are indeed gross simplifications of what the steam era railways would have in any busy terminus and far more appropriate for an outer terminus like say Windsor Riverside (which also had three platforms) The big railway may have been constrained for space when it ventured into the heart of large cities but it didn't generally have our problems with length so the approach pointwork could be spread over half a mile or more.

Looking at your interesting variant, and I've had a good hour's entertainment playing around with it, I may be missing something but  I'm not sure what parallel moves the extra track to platform three offers that a simpler addition to the basic Minories of a running line between the up main and platform three does not. This also preserves the minumum four points length approach to platforms 1 & 2.  With a conventional up and down signalled main line you can only have parallel moves if the inbound (up) path is to a higher numbered platform  than the outbound

With this plan you can also have an arrival on platform three while moving a loco between the loco spur and platform one or two.

I think that, like many "Minories type" plans, you've lost the great virtue of CJF's original Minories arrangement that only one path between the main line and the three platforms (inbound "up" line to platform one)  involves an immediate reverse curve and here there are two such reverses. That's not a problem if, as the big railway almost always did, you have enough length  for crossovers long enough for the stock you're using to not experience buffer locking (real or apparent)  or corridor connections wildly out of line. The great virtue of CJF's arrangement is that even with medium (nominal 3 ft) radius points you can, with fairly long corridor stock, avoid that reverse curve for five of the six possible paths and still fit the whole throat into about three feet (my addition lengthens the approach to platform three by one point length)

I've had a go at developing this arrangement to offer the same accomodation as yours and parallel moves between any two platforms and the main line without using slips. The problem with these with RTL trackwork is that Peco's slips are effectively about two foot radius (equivalent to their small radius points) and for passenger stock I think that's too sharp. With bespoke pointwork you could obviously avoid that (Peco's NMRA spec. 88 line slips are no. 6 so it's a pity they don't do a three foot radius slip in Streamline) To avoid slips I've made the carriage siding a kickback from the run round loop and there would be room to add a second carriage siding. I've also added a trap siding to enable the direct road to platform three to act as a headshunt for the lower trackwork- it could be extended into the fiddle yard to offer a relief road for ECS and off stage shed moves.

The kickback carriage siding(s) may be a bit awkward to shunt so, allowing one  slip in a less critical posiiton, I think you get the same degree of parallel moves and, so long as you don't shunt  passenger stock between the run round loop and the old turntable line, only have an immediate reverse on the path between the up line and platform one.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Pacific231G

[Pacific231G]

On 09/07/2023 at 18:37, Satan's Goldfish said:

I did say i'd have a play about with it following my last post, so here goes;

 

 

Ramp road down to goods shed from over bridge.

 

double slip in goods yard to provide a short head shunt and extra siding for domestic coal supplies (with it's own access road down from the town above). Goods still arrive in a passenger platform outside of peak times and are shunted across.

 

Turnover loco facilities in front of the 'rest of the world' tunnel, could cover coal, ash, water, and possibly a turntable in the end but that could be very rule 1 given the location.

 

Milk platform has been moved to a kick back location from platforms 2 and 3. it could have been just platform 3 as per other goods versions of Minories but i went with the version pictured instead as it would have created a reverse curve due to the centre road i've added. The other end of the milk platform leads direct into the loco facilities, if there's no milk wagons in the platform then that line can be used to move some of the turnover locos with out fouling arrivals to platform 1.

 

Centre road between platforms 1 and 2, (the loco release isn't necessary) can be used for carriage storage outside peak services. accessed by a single slip in the departure direction only so it doesn't have direct access to loco facilities for added operational interest.

 

 

And discuss!

Interesting! Although small goods depots weren't unknown at busy city termini (Birmingham Moor St. Ramsgate Sands and Lyon St. Paul come immediately to mind)  I don't think you'd ever have quite such a small coal yard. You'd be far more likely to have a dedicated coal depot a bit further down the line. Urban centres used to use a lot of coal. That road would probably be more useful as a mileage siding.

This view of the small goods yard at Ramsgate seems to show just that, a siding serving the small goods shed (and also acting at its far end as a loco layover spur with an ashpit and water tower) and a mileage siding. There are open wagons on that siding but I don't think they carry coal 

The nearest I can think of with coals sidings was Richmond upon Thames where the two long coal sidings had far greater capacity than the other goods facilities (which were where the multistory car park is now) .

 

 

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

moves if the inbound (up) path is to a higher numbered platform  than the outbound

With this plan you can also have an arrival on platform three while moving a loco between the loco spur and platform one or two.

 

I keep seeing this idea, but it does not convince me as a steam era British layout.  I think a single slip at the end of platform 1 would be more likely, even though loco shunts are blocked by a departure from platform 2.  Any evidence to the contrary is welcome of course.

 

Edit - using the slip saves a facing point lock on the inbound line.

 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Flying Pig

[Ian_H]

I like what you are doing there  and it seems to be heading toward this;

 

 

with an immense amount of play value!

Edited July 11, 2023 by Ian_H

[Flying Pig]

30 minutes ago, Ian_H said:

I like what you are doing there  and it seems to be heading toward this;

 

 

with an immense amount of play value!

 

Nearly, but this would give more parallel moves ;)

 

[griffgriff]

13 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Nearly, but this would give more parallel moves ;)

 

That cross over is very ‘unMinories’ … better without imho 

[Flying Pig]

2 hours ago, griffgriff said:

That cross over is very ‘unMinories’ … better without imho 

 

Can you unpack what you mean by 'unMinories'?  Technically, you are correct in that Minories does not allow a simultaneous departure from platform 2 and arrival into platform 3, but it wouldn't be against the spirit of the Minories concept to allow that.  If there had been a single slip in the Peco range in 1957, perhaps CJF would have done so.  It is certainly not an uncommon feature of the prototype to use a crossover and single slip, rather than a double slip on its own, in order to create parallel paths.  The disadvantage in model form is that it makes the throat one point longer and eats into platform 2 - perhaps why Bradfield actually used the double slip.

[woodenhead]

17 hours ago, Ian_H said:

I like what you are doing there  and it seems to be heading toward this;

 

 

with an immense amount of play value!

I certainly recognise that trackplan - does everyone else, it's quite iconic on this site.