Theory of General Minories

[Tankerman]

23 minutes ago, Metropolitan H said:

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 2.96 MB · 7 downloads

 

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

 

Regards

Chris H

 

Quote "it gives me enjoyment"  Big or small, very scenic or just trackwork to run the stock on, that should be the main reason for building any model railway.

[LondonCharivari]

On the theme of a Minories style terminal with through running, this accident report for Aldgate in 1884 makes for interesting reading given the overview provided of the various moves required to reverse services in the bay roads either side of the through lines.

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=6767

 

[Nearholmer]

 

Witjout checking, I’m not sure exactly what the configuration was at Aldgate in 1884, but this 1902 photo gives a bit of atmosphere (sulphurous).

[Jeremy Cumberland]

2 hours ago, LondonCharivari said:

On the theme of a Minories style terminal with through running, this accident report for Aldgate in 1884 makes for interesting reading given the overview provided of the various moves required to reverse services in the bay roads either side of the through lines.

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=6767

 

Well that's very interesting indeed, and helps explain how the track plan at Aldgate was worked with loco hauled trains, which had always puzzled me. This is of course before the rebuilding in 1909 when the through lines were changed from the inside pair to the outside pair, but I'd need to check maps to see how much difference this made at the Liverpool Street/Bishopsgate end.

 

To put the signalman's confusion into perspective, the box had 55 levers (probably 49 working). The signalling was completely replaced in 1909, with a new all-electric box having just 30 levers. I don't have a signalling diagram for the 1876 box, but I expect it had 10 separate levers just for the up home signals, whereas the new box would have had just one, but...

 

I am a little puzzled by this:

Quote

Note.—If an up train has passed the distant-signal when the line is clear, the home-signal only must be moved to caution.

"The home-signal" appears to refer to the stop signal and the distant signal collectively, and the instruction is to return the distant to caution. The home signal itself mustn't be returned to danger till the train has passed over the points, and this is standard practice everywhere (and is what Colonel Yolland criticises the signalman for doing, since it led to the accident).

 

I wonder if "moved to caution" means that the home signal has a three-position lever. On the other hand, this quote suggests separate levers:

Quote

I accepted it in the usual way, and took off my distant-signal and home-signal for No. 2 road.

It is also curious that he should describe them in that order. Perhaps the distant was slotted, and the lever wasn't interlocked with the home signal lever in the frame.

 

For those unfamiliar with Metropolitan Railway and Lodon Underground signalling, it is worth pointing out that the "distant"  isn't a distant in the usual sense but a kind of repeater. Clearly this one doesn't simply co-act with the home, but has its own action, but unlike a distant on other railways it only indicates that the next signal is clear, not that all the signals controlled by the signal box are clear. Also note that the Metropolitan and London Underground don't use clearing points, and that a train can be accepted if the line is clear only to the home signal.

 

Anyone planning on operating their Minories layout in a prototypical manner with prototypical signalling, don't get wrong ideas from this report. Unless the track is owned by London Transport, you can't accept a train unless the line is clear to the buffer stops.

Edited February 10 by Jeremy Cumberland

[Jeremy Cumberland]

18 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Witjout checking, I’m not sure exactly what the configuration was at Aldgate in 1884, but this 1902 photo gives a bit of atmosphere (sulphurous).

It's probably the same as at the time of the report (when did the east curve open, though? For some reason I thought it was 1909, but it is shown in your photograph). The train is entering platform 2. The line to platform 1 is where the men are standing. Two sidings (the "A" siding and the "spur" siding) are mentioned in the report, and the locomotive with New Cross board is presumably in one of these. My guess is it is the "A" siding, given the signalman clearly changed a set of points to set the road to it from platform 4, which had previously been set for the down line towards Bishopsgate/Liverpool Street.

[Nearholmer]

1894, which I think matches the 1902 photo well.

 

I’m a bit confused by your 1909 date. What was opened then?

 

 

 

Crossed in the ether - I don’t know when the curve opened, but long before 1909, and in the photo you can see a loco from an ELR service that has presumably got there that way, via St Mary’s Curve.

Edited February 10 by Nearholmer

[Jeremy Cumberland]

Just now, Nearholmer said:

I’m a bit confused by your 1909 date. What was opened then?

 

Aldgate was rebuilt in 1909, and for some reason I had it in my mind that the line to Whitechapel opened then. Clearly I was wrong.

[Pacific231G]

11 hours 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 think Bradfield Gloucester Road must have been influenced- perhaps unconsciously- by Ramsgate Sands. 

apart from being very compact, the main difference being not having the turntable at the end. The main line exiting the platforms and almost immediately going into a tunnel/overbridge and the carriage sidings running further to the right is very characteristic. 

The one not immediately obvious difference is that Ramsgate did have a very narrow two road goods yard  between the up (departures) platform and the cliff behind it though the non goods shed road did have a habit of being used as an extra carriage siding at busy times. 

 

 

[RobinofLoxley]

11 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

I think Bradfield Gloucester Road must have been influenced- perhaps unconsciously- by Ramsgate Sands. 

apart from being very compact, the main difference being not having the turntable at the end. The main line exiting the platforms and almost immediately going into a tunnel/overbridge and the carriage sidings running further to the right is very characteristic. 

The one not immediately obvious difference is that Ramsgate did have a very narrow two road goods yard  between the up (departures) platform and the cliff behind it though the non goods shed road did have a habit of being used as an extra carriage siding at busy times. 

 

 

You can also see that a vast proportion of the beach visitors haven't moved very far at all from the station exit. And its said that aversion to walking further than you can throw a lump of coal is a modern phenomenon.

[Northroader]

That stretch of beach is about all there is at Ramsgate.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

On 07/02/2024 at 09:59, simon b said:

 

If you take out the complex trackwork it becomes close to this: 

 

 

Just to be clear I'm not knocking Buckingham, for what they had to work with back then it's a work of art. But it doesn't come across as an intensive worked commuter terminus which is what Minories set out to represent, with all the extras it has the operation moves to something else. 

 

I actually built this a couple of years ago.  It was pretty good, and a lot of fun to operate, but it had a couple of insoluble problems to do with fitting it into my shed ( two duckunders for a start) and I dismantled it.  I can post some pics if any one is interested.

[Schooner]

10 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

I can post some pics if any one is interested.

 

Always :)

[Lacathedrale]

25 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

I actually built this a couple of years ago.  It was pretty good, and a lot of fun to operate, but it had a couple of insoluble problems to do with fitting it into my shed ( two duckunders for a start) and I dismantled it.  I can post some pics if any one is interested.

yes please, doc!

[simon b]

1 hour ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

I actually built this a couple of years ago.  It was pretty good, and a lot of fun to operate, but it had a couple of insoluble problems to do with fitting it into my shed ( two duckunders for a start) and I dismantled it.  I can post some pics if any one is interested.

Yes please, pics are always great to see! Any parts of the plan that didn't work, or things you would change?

[johnhutnick]

I have seen posted here a copy of a plan "South for Moonshine".  It is apparently from the Model Railway Constructor 1979 annual.  Does anyone have a copy to scan this article?  I can buy it online.  However, with me being in the US, the shiping costs that I am finding are very high.  Thanks for any help.

[Ian_H]

2 hours ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

I actually built this a couple of years ago.  It was pretty good, and a lot of fun to operate, but it had a couple of insoluble problems to do with fitting it into my shed ( two duckunders for a start) and I dismantled it.  I can post some pics if any one is interested.

Yes ... Please post the photo pics

[simon b]

1 hour ago, johnhutnick said:

I have seen posted here a copy of a plan "South for Moonshine".  It is apparently from the Model Railway Constructor 1979 annual.  Does anyone have a copy to scan this article?  I can buy it online.  However, with me being in the US, the shiping costs that I am finding are very high.  Thanks for any help.

You have a PM.

[Pacific231G]

7 hours ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

I actually built this a couple of years ago.  It was pretty good, and a lot of fun to operate, but it had a couple of insoluble problems to do with fitting it into my shed ( two duckunders for a start) and I dismantled it.  I can post some pics if any one is interested.

Did you just build the terminus or the whole Southern Central layout following L.E.Carroll's plan ? 

 

I've been delving into the old MRNs and MRC's stored in my garage and I've found a short article by Carroll in MRC in 1951 (on home made corridor connections) and a series of four in MRC (of which I have all but the first) from 1952 on converting Hornby Dublo 3 rail to stud contact. That appears to have been on a layout that preceded Southern Central which I think was a spiralled terminus to terminus representing  the WCML. He also had a series of 4 articles in MRN on his "linked section" control system (which is for 2 rail)   in 1953/54 followed by an article in June 1958  "Linked Section in Action" describing its application to Southern Central complete with a full schematic diagram of the layout. 

 

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Righto then...

 

 

Here's a general view of the main terminus at the upper level, and the branch terminus.  I had three approach roads on the right - up main, down main and a goods arrival/departure road.  The operating well for the main station was pretty tight.

 

Next, a sequence showing the curved throat - I had to do a 'Grantham' and bend some of the straight turnouts to get a nice flowing curve.  

 

 

And a closer look at the curvy bits...

 

 

 

 

 

and then a look back towards the terminus from the goods line junction.

 

 

Looking back at it - and its been almost three years since I dismantled it - it was a pretty fun layout, and a real challenge to fit into a 16 x 8 shed (15.5 and 7.5 on the inside)

 

Why did I dismantle it?  I couldn't get on with the two duckunders, too old for that malarkey now, and I didn't like being stuck inside the operating pit.  

 

I also couldn't fit any staging loops in the return loop area, which defeated the operating potential.  The station was also a foot too short really, so trains were always 'hanging out of the ass end' of the platforms.

 

If I had enough room to deal with those issues - in particular, moving the return loop behind the station so that there was no tiny operating pit, and making the whole layout suitable for walkaround control - I would certainly do it again.  

 

Sorry for the thread deviation.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

Did you just build the terminus or the whole Southern Central layout following L.E.Carroll's plan ? 

 

Yes, the whole thing although I couldn't fit 'Clapham' or 'West Croydon' into my version.  Here's some under construction views, including the return loop and the branch terminus.

 

 

 

[Lacathedrale]

Truly a real shame that the double duckunder did that for, because it really does look like a good deal of care and attention has been paid to it. I think we're all a bit guilty about the proverbial quart but few have the gumption to see it through despite reservations. That lovely curved approach is something I'm earmarking as inspiration on the potential corner extension to my own Minories - though the platforms are long enough for my trains, I do want to see the tinest bit of plain running before they dive into the staging area.

 

Edited February 12 by Lacathedrale

[JohnR]

I wonder if the solution is to make the entrance to the return loop "Clapham Junction" and maybe forget the branch terminus?

[simes]

Love that layout!  Lots of operating potential and not much space left for non-railway scenery.  Just the way I like it.  My taste is old-fashioned, I want a model railway, not a model landscape.  And as for 'trains hanging out of the ass end of platforms' - yup, my 'Minories' has that too.  But so does the real railway on many lines round here, so that's fine by me.

Edited February 12 by simes

[Pacific231G]

2 hours ago, simes said:

Love that layout!  Lots of operating potential and not much space left for non-railway scenery.  Just the way I like it.  My taste is old-fashioned, I want a model railway, not a model landscape.  And as for 'trains hanging out of the ass end of platforms' - yup, my 'Minories' has that too.  But so does the real railway on many lines round here, so that's fine by me.

If you look at some of the layouts  illustrated in Edward Beal's books, they show that a busy all-railway scene with good use of retaining walls etc. can be very effective without going beyond the railway fence. There are plenty of real places (especially around London) that look just like that.

 

Looking  at L.E.Carroll's articles, his trains seem never to have been longer than four  coaches whether loco hauled or electric sets. That used to be quite common  and even the celebrated pre-war Maybank model railway -the first MLT- storage sidings layout- was all railway and based on four coach trains. Carroll got round the problem of duckunders (and the need to store the car in the garage) by the use of "bascules" with counterweighted baseboards that hinged up against the walls of the garage. His main interest seems to have been in correct operation of trains through the various block-sections but, in that steam and pre-Beeching era, the argument was often made that if you just wanted to watch trains going through the countryside it was far easier to simply go out and watch the real thing than to build a model to do so.  If you wanted to operate trains, well for that, unless your name was Howey,  you did need a model railway.   

Edited February 12 by Pacific231G

[dunnyrail]

On 07/02/2024 at 08:56, D-A-T said:

Looking at the full track plan the terminus is called Victoria, there are hidden sidings and other stations so I think this is the layout you mention. Especially as the builder is reluctant(?) to be named. 

LE Carroll’s layout was described very effectively in a set of articles in the Model Railway News describing his “Link Section Control (LSC)” operating system. He used signal and the levers operated switches that powered up the track for trains to run. No signal no train run. My only gripe about his LSC system was that it operated in front, IE you had to have all the route set from Victoria to Reigate for Victoria to drive the train all the way leaving signals off after the train Passed. I re-engineered the system for my own use so that the train was offered forward from box to box and the box in advance drove the train. Thus when a train had passed the signals could be returned to danger. However this would mean if Reigate was to drive from Victoria to himself the route would need to be setup by Victoria offering to Clapham the Clapham offering to East Croydon then East Croydon offering to Reigate. Probably still not perfect either. This would also negate the option to one man drive a service from Victoria to the Fiddle Return Loop (under or behind Reigate) back to Victoria.

 

Articles on LSC can be found:-

September/October/December 1953  January 1954 General Principles of LSC 4 articles

May 1955 Train Exchange Return Loop

June 1956 SIGNAL box Sub Sectioning

June 1958 LSC In action 

August 1961 Four Minutes to Brighton

January 1969. New Victoria Line

 

As you can see a comprehensive treatise to the layout and how it was electrified and run.
 

These days one would think that DCC would negate it all, but with signals making a dead section in front of it so that a spad would stop a train, his principles can work for an properly Operating Model Railway to this day.  I wish I could have visited his line back in the day, he would have had big problems getting me to go home such is my interest in proper prototype Model Railway operation back then and still today.