Theory of General Minories

[Pacific231G]

16 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I agree with you. I chatted with one of the operators at a show, the first time I saw it in the continuous run form. I asked him why they had changed it. The answer was that they wanted to have a layout that was easier to run at shows, as every train terminating meant more work. I thought they had rather spoiled the layout, both down to the ratio of square feet of layout to fiddle yard and also in the operational interest. 

 

I had the same conversation with Tom Cunnington, possibly at the same show, and he said that it was mainly to enable goods trains to be used and that passenger trains would still terminate but whether that policy survived the pressures of exhibition running I couldn't say. 

Tom did let me have a go at operating the terminus end of Minories (GC) at a show a few years ago and, even with a second operator handling the fiddle yard, keeping the turnover sequence going without getting into knots would certainly require a great deal of concentration over the course of an exhibition day.  Nevertheless, the continuous run version did little for me either.  

 

Strangely enough, I found a Pathé News film preview of the 1938 MRC show

https://www.britishpathe.com/asset/45030/

and there was a layout with a through station that looked rather familiar.

 

Eventually, the penny  dropped and I realised it was the 0 gauge Maybank Layout.

Railway company demo displays aside, this was the first published or exhibited main line terminus to fiddle yard layout. It was built by Bill Banwell and Frank Applegate and first exhibited in 1933. It was later described by Cyril Freezer, who was fascinated by it at one of the MRC shows,  as "The first of the moderns" and was undoubtedly a major inspiration for Minories.

This is the layout at the 1937 MRC show and it is clearly still a terminus. 

Maybank was a four platform terminus with a high level MPD hiding a motorised four road sector plate set of storage sidings. They seem to have added a return loop to that end at some stage but, in this screen grab, you can see that the two centre roads have been extended onto what I assume is another return loop. Another shot later in the newsreel seems to show that they had modified the MPD by bringing it down to ground level. 

 

Messrs. Banwell and Applegate were both members of the MRC - the Maybank was a regular feature at its Easter show from 1934 until the war (it didn't survive the Blitz) and, as the layout was an imaginary GCR terminus set somewhere on the east coast, I assume it was also an influence on Happisburgh.   

 

Edited February 9 by Pacific231G

[t-b-g]

14 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

 

I had the same conversation with Tom Cunnington, possibly at the same show, and he said that it was mainly to enable goods trains to be used and that passenger trains would still terminate but whether that policy survived the pressures of exhibition running I couldn't say. 

Tom did let me have a go at operating the terminus end of Minories (GC) at a show a few years ago and, even with a second operator handling the fiddle yard, keeping the turnover sequence going without getting into knots would certainly require a great deal of concentration over the course of an exhibition day. 

 

Strangely enough, I found a Pathé News film preview of the 1938 MRC shows and there was a layout with a through station that looked rather familiar.

 

Eventually, the penny  dropped and I realised it was the 0 gauge Maybank Layout. Railway company demo displays aside, this was the first published or exhibited main line terminus to fiddle yard layout. It was built by Bill Banwell and Frank Applegate and first exhibited in 1933. It was later described by Cyril Freezer, who was fascinated by it at one of the MRC shows,  as "The first of the moderns" and was undoubtedly a major inspiration for Minories.

This is the layout at the 1937 MRC show. 

Maybank was a four platform terminus with a high level MPD hiding a motorised four road sector plate set of storage sidings. They seem to have added a return loop to that end at some stage but, in this screen grab, you can see that the two centre roads have been extended onto what I assume is another return loop. Another shot in the newsreel suggest that they had also brought the MPD down to ground level. 

Messrs. Banwell and Applegate were both members of the MRC - the Maybank was a regular feature at its Easter show from 1934 until the war (it didn't survive the Blitz) and, as the layout was an imaginary GCR terminus set somewhere on the east coast, I assume it was also an influence on Happisburgh.   

 

 

I have see that before and I am sure it is Maybank. The layout was altered regularly and this version does look like it is a through station rather than a terminus.

 

There is also the briefest glimpse of Buckingham in the Pathe archives.

 

There are a couple of very short shots of the Mk 1 layout, when the period was 1912 and the carriages were painted teak brown, at the 1948 MRC exhibition. It is a fascinating archive, with lots of good railway and model railway content.

[Pacific231G]

10 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I have see that before and I am sure it is Maybank. The layout was altered regularly and this version does look like it is a through station rather than a terminus.

 

There is also the briefest glimpse of Buckingham in the Pathe archives.

 

There are a couple of very short shots of the Mk 1 layout, when the period was 1912 and the carriages were painted teak brown, at the 1948 MRC exhibition. It is a fascinating archive, with lots of good railway and model railway content.

No doubt at all Tony, especially as you can recognise the two of them in the later shot showing the MPD whose plan is the same as when it was high level.

The very first shot with the inbound line coming out of the tunnel on a curve, suggests a return balloon loop and I assume they'd turned the layout into a dumb-bell. That would have enabled a continuous flow of trains and "keep something moving for visitors" and that appears to be what we're seeing them doing in that shot with  expresses whizzing through Maybank station. I think the viaduct may also have been an extension to the right hand side as it looks like one of their GCR trains. I  would have found it far less fascinating in that mode and their original way of showing it as a terminus was to set up the storage roads and run a twenty minute timetabled sequence every hour.

I wonder what it would cost to licence the films at full resolution from Pathé   

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

No doubt at all Tony, especially as you can recognise the two of them in the later shot showing the MPD whose plan is the same as when it was high level.

The very first shot with the inbound line coming out of the tunnel on a curve, suggests a return balloon loop and I assume they'd turned the layout into a dumb-bell. That would have enabled a continuous flow of trains and "keep something moving for visitors" and that appears to be what we're seeing them doing in that shot with  expresses whizzing through Maybank station. I think the viaduct may also have been an extension to the right hand side as it looks like one of their GCR trains. I  would have found it far less fascinating in that mode and their original way of showing it as a terminus was to set up the storage roads and run a twenty minute timetabled sequence every hour.

I wonder what it would cost to licence the films at full resolution from Pathé   

 

I did find a 1930s film of Maybank that went into a lot more detail on the layout. It included a shot of it being transported to an exhibition in a lorry and also construction work on a loco, with what looked like a GCR 0-6-2T body being painted with an "old school" paint sprayer.

 

I have looked for it again since but not been able to find it. It was probably in either the Pathe or Huntley archives. Maybank was very much a trailblazer in the hobby, especially as regards design and operation and if the Germans hadn't finished it off, it would have been worthy of preservation. I wonder if anything survived, even if just a loco or item of stock?

 

Edit to add a link to the footagle which includes Buckingham. The loco, carriages and some of the buildings are still in regular use, 76 years later.

 

https://www.britishpathe.com/asset/172501/

Edited February 9 by t-b-g
To add content

[MartinRS]

35 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I have looked for it again since but not been able to find it. It was probably in either the Pathe or Huntley archives.

Is this what you saw? https://www.huntleyarchives.com/results.asp?txtkeys1=Maybank model railway

[JohnR]

Is there a good history of Maybank (through its various iterations) available? I see from that film from 1935 that the first version was 3-rail!

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, MartinRS said:

Is this what you saw? https://www.huntleyarchives.com/results.asp?txtkeys1=Maybank model railway

 

That's the one. Many thanks and well done for finding it. Last time I tried to search the Huntley archives I couldn't find it but that was some time ago and they may have updated things since.

 

Isn't it a wonderful look at how this hobby of ours was all those years ago. Lovely stuff!

[Metropolitan H]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I did find a 1930s film of Maybank that went into a lot more detail on the layout. It included a shot of it being transported to an exhibition in a lorry and also construction work on a loco, with what looked like a GCR 0-6-2T body being painted with an "old school" paint sprayer.

 

I have looked for it again since but not been able to find it. It was probably in either the Pathe or Huntley archives. Maybank was very much a trailblazer in the hobby, especially as regards design and operation and if the Germans hadn't finished it off, it would have been worthy of preservation. I wonder if anything survived, even if just a loco or item of stock?

 

Edit to add a link to the footagle which includes Buckingham. The loco, carriages and some of the buildings are still in regular use, 76 years later.

 

https://www.britishpathe.com/asset/172501/

We had a similar discussion regarding "Maybank" and the later - post WW2 - "Maycroft" about a year and a bit ago.

 

Not only was there an early article in a 1934 issue of the Model Railway News, there was a later 5 page article by Bernard Wright (of S gauge Swanage fame) in the December 1975 issue of "Model Railways", including a picture of one of the garden sheds erected as part of the garden railway displays at the post war MRC shows. While "Maybank" was a collabrative effort by Bill Banwell and Frank Applegate, the later stood himself down from circa 1949 - after which Bill Banwell's main collabarator was Geoff Bigmore.

 

By the way when the two lads are seen running off to watch the train pass I believe the scene to have been shot a little to the south of Chorleywood Station - which is the location of the scene in which Bill and Frank are seen measuring up the ex"Metropolitan Railway" signal box.

 

Regards

Chris H

 

P.S. - The last showing of a "Maycroft" layout at the MRC Easter exhibition was 1966 - I visited as a teenager and still remember how good it was.

 

CH

Edited February 9 by Metropolitan H

[t-b-g]

31 minutes ago, Metropolitan H said:

We had a similar discussion regarding "Maybank" and the later - post WW2 - "Maycroft" about a year and a bit ago.

 

Not only was there an early article in a 1934 issue of the Model Railway News, there was a later 5 page article by Bernard Wright (of S gauge Swanage fame) in the December 1975 issue of "Model Railways", including a picture of one of the garden sheds erected as part of the garden railway displays at the post war MRC shows. While "Maybank" was a collabrative effort by Bill Banwell and Frank Applegate, the later stood himself down from circa 1949 - after which Bill Banwell's main collabarator was Geoff Bigmore.

 

By the way when the two lads are seen running off to watch the train pass I believe the scene to have been shot a little to the south of Chorleywood Station - which is the location of the scene in which Bill and Frank are seen measuring up the ex"Metropolitan Railway" signal box.

 

Regards

Chris H

 

P.S. - The last showing of a "Maycroft" layout at the MRC Easter exhibition was 1966 - I visited as a teenager and still remember how good it was.

 

CH

 

Thanks for the additional information and recollections.

 

I thought it interesting that they measured up a Metropolitan Station to build a model of what would have been an MS&LR station! Probably "artistic license" for the filming.

 

I can identify the A5 and the D11 easily enough but the tiny glimpse of the first train hasn't given me enough to say for sure what it is. The two carriages appear to have round tops to the door vents, which suggests Metropolitan Railway. The round spectacles and the suggestion of a smokebox numberplate have Midland Railway vibes. There look to be very short clips of two different locos, as one looks to have a different shape to the firebox.

 

Such details matter little nearly 90 years later but I find them fascinating.

 

Do you know if some of the pre war GCR stock appeared post war? If so, there is a better chance that some survives today.

 

Tony Gee

[Metropolitan H]

All I know is from the MRN and MR articles, but there is a reference in the later article to the stock on the post-war layouts being finished in LNER colours, which makes sense as the loco roster included a V2 - a personal favourite.

 

Regards

Chris H

[Izzy]

I'm of the opinion that in the early days most layouts placed operational use at the forefront of their designs with just mostly token scenery within the railway boundary unlike today where the opposite often exists with many and the railway side seems almost incidental to the scenic one. 

 

To my mind Minories falls into the former category and I still often think I would like to build a minimal size version but get stuck at wanting to expand the range of trains to make it more interesting to operate. How to do so without expanding the track design much or having more platforms. Different types of traffic rather than just more of the same. That would I feel get boring to operate quite quickly for a lone modeller such as myself.

 

Bob

[Flying Pig]

18 minutes ago, Izzy said:

I'm of the opinion that in the early days most layouts placed operational use at the forefront of their designs with just mostly token scenery within the railway boundary unlike today where the opposite often exists with many and the railway side seems almost incidental to the scenic one. 

 

To my mind Minories falls into the former category and I still often think I would like to build a minimal size version but get stuck at wanting to expand the range of trains to make it more interesting to operate. How to do so without expanding the track design much or having more platforms. Different types of traffic rather than just more of the same. That would I feel get boring to operate quite quickly for a lone modeller such as myself.

 

Bob

 

Doesn't your 2mm layout do just that in a slightly smaller station?

[enz]

2 hours ago, Izzy said:

I'm of the opinion that in the early days most layouts placed operational use at the forefront of their designs with just mostly token scenery within the railway boundary unlike today where the opposite often exists with many and the railway side seems almost incidental to the scenic one. 

 

To my mind Minories falls into the former category and I still often think I would like to build a minimal size version but get stuck at wanting to expand the range of trains to make it more interesting to operate. How to do so without expanding the track design much or having more platforms. Different types of traffic rather than just more of the same. That would I feel get boring to operate quite quickly for a lone modeller such as myself.

 

Bob

You could close the station (or part of it) to passengers and run it as a parcels and/or small consignments goods station. Perhaps have a passenger service in the day and all goods at night using one of the platforms for a limited passenger service or all three swapping function. If you assume that some of the stock are going to different destinations, either as trip workings or the nucleus of inter-city parcels or newspaper trains, you would be able to have some entertaining shunting, if that's your thing.

 

Just a suggestion, but I think it could work to provide variety.

 

Evan

[Clive Mortimore]

6 hours ago, MartinRS said:

Is this what you saw? https://www.huntleyarchives.com/results.asp?txtkeys1=Maybank model railway

Wow a lovely bit of film.

[Izzy]

2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Doesn't your 2mm layout do just that in a slightly smaller station?

Yes it does, indeed it’s been far more successful in providing the scope for wider operations than I could ever had envisaged. I just like the idea, the challenge, of making an original design folding baseboard Minories that could give a similar level of operations since my first truly worthwhile layout was a small folding baseboard design. 
 

Bob

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, Izzy said:

I'm of the opinion that in the early days most layouts placed operational use at the forefront of their designs with just mostly token scenery within the railway boundary unlike today where the opposite often exists with many and the railway side seems almost incidental to the scenic one. 

 

To my mind Minories falls into the former category and I still often think I would like to build a minimal size version but get stuck at wanting to expand the range of trains to make it more interesting to operate. How to do so without expanding the track design much or having more platforms. Different types of traffic rather than just more of the same. That would I feel get boring to operate quite quickly for a lone modeller such as myself.

 

Bob

 

Once you get your head around not just having a rapid turnaround suburban service, you can add lots of variety without major alterations to the plan. A freight train can work in, just to drop a loco coal wagon off for the coal stage on the loco spur. Parcels vans, carriage trucks and horse boxes can be added and removed. You could have a gas tank for refilling the tanks on carriages. You can have ecs workings to an off stage set of carriage sidings, along with light engine moves to and from the nearby shed. Newspaper trains could come in and unload in the platforms.

 

One day, mine will have a sequence that starts with newspaper trains and early morning workman's trains giving way to a rush hour, then some long distance train portions, to be attached to other portions along the line interspersed with local services, with perhaps a horse box special and a goods train swapping loco coal wagons and maybe dropping a couple of vans to be attached to passenger services for during the day. Then back to another rush hour and then some evening parcels and workman only services.

 

That should give enough variety. I am sure I will think of others to add, like a steam railmotor or push pull shuttle service.

 

The passenger trains can be handled in several different ways, as I have mentioned previously. 

Edited February 9 by t-b-g
Spelling error

[St Enodoc]

5 hours ago, Metropolitan H said:

P.S. - The last showing of a "Maycroft" layout at the MRC Easter exhibition was 1966 - I visited as a teenager and still remember how good it was.

I know - 'cos I was there!

 

M. Boyce

[D-A-T]

3 hours ago, Izzy said:

I'm of the opinion that in the early days most layouts placed operational use at the forefront of their designs with just mostly token scenery within the railway boundary unlike today where the opposite often exists with many and the railway side seems almost incidental to the scenic one. 

 

To my mind Minories falls into the former category and I still often think I would like to build a minimal size version but get stuck at wanting to expand the range of trains to make it more interesting to operate. How to do so without expanding the track design much or having more platforms. Different types of traffic rather than just more of the same. That would I feel get boring to operate quite quickly for a lone modeller such as myself.

 

Bob

 

57 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Once you get your head around not just having a rapid turnaround suburban service, you can add lots of variety without major alterations to the plan. A freight train can work in, just to drop a loco coal wagon off for the coal stage on the loco spur. Parcels vans, carriage trucks and horse boxes can be added and removed. You could have a gas tank for refilling the tanks on carriages. You can have ecs workings to an off stage set of carriage sidings, along with light engine moves to and from the nearby shed. Newspaper trains could come in and unload in the platforms.

 

One day, mine will have a sequence that starts with newspaper trains and early morning workman's trains giving way to a rush hour, then some long distance train portions, to be attached to other portions along the line interspersed with local services, with perhaps a horse box special and a goods train swapping loco coal wagons and maybe dropping a couple of vans to be attached to passenger services for during the day. Then back to another rush hour and then some evening parcels and workman only services.

 

That should give enough variety. I am sure I will think of others to add, like a steam railmotor or push pull shuttle service.

 

The passenger trains can be handled in several different ways, as I have mentioned previously. 

Bradfield Gloucester Square springs to mind. Lots of videos on YouTube showing the variety of traffic and the ebb and flow during the day.

 

[Pacific231G]

On 08/02/2024 at 14:31, Compound2632 said:

 

That's what it is. The plan is from Model Railway News Vol. 45 No. 529 (Jan 1969) pp. 12-17, L.E. Carroll "New Victoria Line" (though it may have appeared elsewhere). When I posted it before (possibly upthread somewhere, from the subsequent discussion, as I recall, it was established that L.E. Carroll was a pseudonym for S.W. Stevens Stratten. I've liked the plan ever since I first saw it. It is topologically identical to Minories but having the crossovers on the curve is to my mind a more elegant solution to the reverse curve issue than Minories' odd wiggle. it's also textbook example of fully interlocked section control.  

Thanks for the reference. I thought I had that article somewhere and I've now found it. I'm not sure about the pseudonym, though it's possible, as L.E. Carroll had been contributing to MRN since far earlier with a series of four articles, starting in  September 1953, on a system of control he'd devised called "Linked Section Control". This had an operator at each station and the signal levers also acting as section switches (I believe Peter Denny adopted something like that but Tony will know) . He mentioned that he'd been casting around  for a simpler system of section control while planning  a modification of his previous layout.

There was an article in the May 1955 MRN "Train Exchage" describing an automated holding loop in the reverse curve to avoid the situation where "the down Brighton Belle disappeared into the tunnel at 3.30 and emerged on the up line five seconds later"  - the major weakness of a balloon loop even though it avoided the situation of "hoofing down to Brighton to reverse every train.

A schematic of the complete layout first saw the light of MRN day in June 1958 in an article titled "Linked-Section Control in Action" explaining how the system worked, with a couple of photos but no general description of the layout.

A complete description appeared three years later in the August 1961 MRN in "Four minutes to Brighton" . However, he said that he'd decided to build the Southern Central as an out and return in 1952. His previous layout having been the point to point in which, for three months, "having despatched trains from Victoria, he had to "hoof it" down to "Brighton" to retrieve them". The reference to three months suggests that the earlier layout wasn't satisfactory and didn't last long.

The "Victoria" in that layout had been "Brighton" in the previous and, as the plans posted earlier show, had three platforms and no releasing crossovers  (like Minories) two stock sidings and a turntable. 

The new layout clearly did and in "New Victoria Line "in Jan 1959 the enlarged Victoria station has five platforms , extra sidings including a kickback parcels platform and a proper loco shed alongside the  turntable. If there were any other changes to the rest of the layout, he didn't mention them. 

 

I've looked for any earlier articles by L.E. Carroll in MRN but so far haven't found any but there are references to the name associated with MRC in 1952 .  

Edited February 10 by Pacific231G
new information about 1955 article

[t-b-g]

9 hours ago, D-A-T said:

 

Bradfield Gloucester Square springs to mind. Lots of videos on YouTube showing the variety of traffic and the ebb and flow during the day.

 

 

I saw Bradfield a few times at shows. If it had been GCR pregrouping steam, to would have been perfection to my eyes. As it was, it was superb and well worth watching for a long time.

[Metropolitan H]

16 hours ago, Izzy said:

I'm of the opinion that in the early days most layouts placed operational use at the forefront of their designs with just mostly token scenery within the railway boundary unlike today where the opposite often exists with many and the railway side seems almost incidental to the scenic one. 

 

To my mind Minories falls into the former category and I still often think I would like to build a minimal size version but get stuck at wanting to expand the range of trains to make it more interesting to operate. How to do so without expanding the track design much or having more platforms. Different types of traffic rather than just more of the same. That would I feel get boring to operate quite quickly for a lone modeller such as myself.

 

Bob

Bob,

 

Look out for "Newchapel Junction" - it has its own website ( see https://www.newchapeljn.co.uk/index.htm )and is booked for the Doncaster Racecourse Show - this weeked! - and the Ally-Pally Show in mid March.

 

Newchapel Junction is much larger than Minories or any sensible single person layout, but I can happily spend a long time watching the trains and dreaming!

 

Regards

Chris H

[Izzy]

13 hours ago, D-A-T said:

 

Bradfield Gloucester Square springs to mind. Lots of videos on YouTube showing the variety of traffic and the ebb and flow during the day.

 

Yes, it’s really good, but is a significant enlargement on Minories with the multiple carriage sidings etc. which are the key to its operation. In recent years I have come to realise that decent large capacity fiddle yards are a must for single user layouts if you don’t want to spend more time just continually changing stock in them to run the most simple of sequences when the layout track design doesn’t have the capacity. It’s different if two people are involved and one just works the fiddle. 
 

Bob

[Metropolitan H]

My own take on a Minories inspired style terminal - with roundy-round through roads - going under the working title of "Gutter Lane" is "O" gauge Coarse Scale, is gradually growing in my 11.5 ft x 7.5 ft railway is shown below.

Gutter Lane Buildings etc 1a 002.pdf

 

It is cramped, but it gives me enjoyment - including just watching the trains go by.

 

Regards

Chris H

[D-A-T]

22 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Yes, it’s really good, but is a significant enlargement on Minories with the multiple carriage sidings etc. which are the key to its operation. In recent years I have come to realise that decent large capacity fiddle yards are a must for single user layouts if you don’t want to spend more time just continually changing stock in them to run the most simple of sequences when the layout track design doesn’t have the capacity. It’s different if two people are involved and one just works the fiddle. 
 

Bob

I’ve often thought that a kickback row of carriage sidings would be more appropriate to Minories that trying to include Goods facilities as they would, following the ethos of the design, be dispersed down the line so to speak. In fact, in later Plans Handbooks, it was so as there were designs for junctions, goods yard, loco shed etc. Also, as per Bradfield, a potential scenic break in front of the Fiddleyard/Storage area. 

[Nearholmer]

Except that, having been inspired by the Circle Line in the first place, having goods facilities sprig-off is “in keeping”, and oddly enough carriage sheds aren’t. Similarly Broad Street was on top of its own goods facility, and Fenchurch Street had goods facilities on the door step. The only London terminus where the carriage sheds were close to the station platforms that I can think of quickly was Victoria, and in several cases the run to the carriage servicing facility was quite long.

 

It depends a lot on what one has in mind, which city, and which railway.