Theory of General Minories

[JohnR]

I dont think you'd need any special trickery with DCC. All you have to do is drive and obey the signals in front of you - same as drivers on the real thing. Train Tech do colour light signals that can change back to red/double yellow/yellow after a train has passed.

[Compound2632]

I am informed by a reliable source - whose father visited and helped operate the layout in the 1950s - that L.E. Carroll was not S.W. Stevens-Stratten.

[Pacific231G]

22 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I am informed by a reliable source - whose father visited and helped operate the layout in the 1950s - that L.E. Carroll was not S.W. Stevens-Stratten.

No doubt at all in my mind. I've been going through a lot of MRNs and MRCs from the late 1940s to 1960 recently and found a good number of articles by L E Carroll  Apart from the four or five articles in MRN about his Link Section Control system and the out and return from Victoria layout, already listed by Dunnyrail yesterday, there are articles in MRC about his first layout which used HD 3 rail locos converted for stud-contact along with others in both magazines covering a range of topics including, among others,  fine scale point construction, transition curves, avoiding buffer-locking and scratchbuilt coach construction. 

His first layout "as a complete beginner" was quite interesting in concept. It was described in the first of three articles "Horny Dublo and Stud Contact" in March 1952. and, from his articles, would have been built in 1948. There were  two termini and a continuous run which was mostly double track but with the two termini fed from a single line section to make for simplet pointwork (it was based on simple turnouts) making operation of trains in both directions "challenging" 

 

Unfortunately, there are no photos of the layout   I assume that the operating plan was for trains to leave each terminus and then run round the continuous section for several circuits before arriving at the other terminus. The trick of sharing the turntable, which Carroll describes as "heinously unrailwaylike" but highly convenient with the locoshed making a good camouflage,   is one I've seen on a few American plans and quite useful given how much space they need. 

I can't make out any sign of stud contact on his later (but not that much later) Victoria out and back layout first revealed in MRN in May 1955 (Train Exchange) so think he must have gone to two rail fairly quickly after describing how to adopt stud-cotact. 

Why L E Carroll was not named in the 1979 MRC annual article "South for Moonshine" isn't at all clear. Possibly he felt, wrongly, that having written up the layout for MRN he couldn't then offer an article about it to MRC but Stevens Stratton also described the layout very much in the past tense. I haven't as yet found anything written by Carroll after his New Victoria Line article about the enlarged Victoria Station in MRN in January 1969 and the photo that illustrates South for Moonshine also appears in that article.   

Edited February 19 by Pacific231G

[dunnyrail]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

No doubt at all in my mind. I've been going through a lot of MRNs and MRCs from the late 1940s to 1960 recently and found a good number of articles by L E Carroll  Apart from the four or five articles in MRN about his Link Section Control system and the out and return from Victoria layout, already listed by Dunnyrail yesterday, there are articles in MRC about his first layout which used HD 3 rail locos converted for stud-contact along with others in both magazines covering a range of topics including, among others,  fine scale point construction, transition curves, avoiding buffer-locking and scratchbuilt coach construction. 

His first layout "as a complete beginner" was quite interesting in concept. It was described in the first of three articles "Horny Dublo and Stud Contact" in March 1952. and, from his articles, would have been built in 1948. There were  two termini and a continuous run which was mostly double track but with the two termini fed from a single line section to make for simplet pointwork (it was based on simple turnouts) making operation of trains in both directions "challenging" 

 

Unfortunately, there are no photos of the layout   I assume that the operating plan was for trains to leave each terminus and then run round the continuous section for several circuits before arriving at the other terminus. The trick of sharing the turntable, which Carroll describes as "heinously unrailwaylike" but highly convenient with the locoshed making a good camouflage,   is one I've seen on a few American plans and quite useful given how much space they need. 

I can't make out any sign of stud contact on his later (but not that much later) Victoria out and back layout first revealed in MRN in May 1955 (Train Exchange) so think he must have gone to two rail fairly quickly after describing how to adopt stud-cotact. 

Why L E Carroll was not named in the 1979 MRC annual article "South for Moonshine" isn't at all clear. Possibly he felt, wrongly, that having written up the layout for MRN he couldn't then offer an article about it to MRC but Stevens Stratton also described the layout very much in the past tense. I haven't as yet found anything written by Carroll after his New Victoria Line article about the enlarged Victoria Station in MRN in January 1969 and the photo that illustrates South for Moonshine also appears in that article.   

That Glasgow - Euston layout is very interesting and I imagine much operating was carried out in a prototype way though probably only with the main expresses, it is a somewhat  limited layout by scope but then likely what was affordable and available at the time.

 

I built a layout for a friend some years back now, as he was into Hydraulic Diesels it was based on Paddington to Penzance in a modest sized Terraced Housevloft. Paddington was a 5 platform sort of Minories, we then went out via a Junction that came in from Plymouth to give a continuous run. By the Junction Acton ML were sidings that represented both Old Oak and a very modest Yard St.Blazy the other side for freight interest. Bristol was next that was a 3 platform station where the loop was used to terminate NESW services from that route, but in effect was just a Peak hauled train from Paddington that made a short run. It could also have run to Plymouth but I never thought about that when creating the Timetable. Plymouth was next where we had a 2 island 4 platform station, expresses lost or gained a coach and a Dining Car. Then the junction was passed where the continuous run could be taken or turn left to Penzance another Minories with some sidings for carriages and vans. Though I call the 2 stations Minories in concept the crossovers were after a 1/4 curve to fit things in. 
 

Cab Control was used with all Panels able to run to all parts of the line but of course the sections needed to be set at the other 2 of the 3 panels. One did Paddington and Plymouth, the Main Line one was at the Junction and the third one did Bristol and Penzance. Thus 3 people could have a very effective operating session. When running on his own the owner used the Main Line panel with points all hand operated changed as required.

 

Sadly the line had to be relocated on a move and there was no space in the new house so it was stored in a slightly damp shed, I imagine it is still there and the boards completely trashed by now.
 

Below is the concept drawing that was modified a bit but not a lot. Old Oak was never fully developed. In concept it was much along the type of lines built in the 50’s where complete routes were created.

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, dunnyrail said:

That Glasgow - Euston layout is very interesting and I imagine much operating was carried out in a prototype way though probably only with the main expresses, it is a somewhat  limited layout by scope but then likely what was affordable and available at the time.

 

I built a layout for a friend some years back now, as he was into Hydraulic Diesels it was based on Paddington to Penzance in a modest sized Terraced Housevloft. Paddington was a 5 platform sort of Minories, we then went out via a Junction that came in from Plymouth to give a continuous run. By the Junction Acton ML were sidings that represented both Old Oak and a very modest Yard St.Blazy the other side for freight interest. Bristol was next that was a 3 platform station where the loop was used to terminate NESW services from that route, but in effect was just a Peak hauled train from Paddington that made a short run. It could also have run to Plymouth but I never thought about that when creating the Timetable. Plymouth was next where we had a 2 island 4 platform station, expresses lost or gained a coach and a Dining Car. Then the junction was passed where the continuous run could be taken or turn left to Penzance another Minories with some sidings for carriages and vans. Though I call the 2 stations Minories in concept the crossovers were after a 1/4 curve to fit things in. 
 

Cab Control was used with all Panels able to run to all parts of the line but of course the sections needed to be set at the other 2 of the 3 panels. One did Paddington and Plymouth, the Main Line one was at the Junction and the third one did Bristol and Penzance. Thus 3 people could have a very effective operating session. When running on his own the owner used the Main Line panel with points all hand operated changed as required.

 

Sadly the line had to be relocated on a move and there was no space in the new house so it was stored in a slightly damp shed, I imagine it is still there and the boards completely trashed by now.
 

Below is the concept drawing that was modified a bit but not a lot. Old Oak was never fully developed. In concept it was much along the type of lines built in the 50’s where complete routes were created.

This rather reminds me of Gilbert Thomas' Paddington to Seagood layout which occupied an 18 x 25 ft billiard room in his South Devon House. 

This was of course in 0 gauge (with spring drive locos) so would be roughly equivalent to 13 x 9 ft in 00 or H0 - the typical size of a bedroom in a 1930s semi (though you'd need wider aisles). I note that, like Minories, "Paddington" has just three platforms and the outer terminus two.   Readig his 1947 book "Paddington to Seagood" again,  I rather liked his approach to the hobby "...the pleasure of model railroading consists.., not in the slavish imitation of the real thing, but in essential fidelity to actual working conditions...It is from carrying out representative  railway operations that the interest springs, and this may be done quite satifactorily on a diminutive scale" 

 

[Nearholmer]

Terminus-circuit-terminus is the ultimate model railway configuration IMO, it’s very satisfying to operate, and if it isn’t heresy in this thread I’d say that the best use Minories could be put to would be as the city terminus on such a layout.

[Flying Pig]

On 19/02/2024 at 19:41, Nearholmer said:

Terminus-circuit-terminus is the ultimate model railway configuration IMO, it’s very satisfying to operate, and if it isn’t heresy in this thread I’d say that the best use Minories could be put to would be as the city terminus on such a layout.

 

You might like this ;)

 

 

[Flying Pig]

A perhaps useful repost, originally posted by @Pacific231G on this thread, now lost from the forum but still for some reason cached by Google.  The signal diagram for Tower Pier:

 

[Pacific231G]

10 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

A perhaps useful repost, originally posted by @Pacific231G on this thread, now lost from the forum but still for some reason cached by Google.  The signal diagram for Tower Pier:

 

Where is it cached by Google ? (I hope nobody is nicking my photos) 

This is the complete image I cropped it from which I took at Watford Finescale in 2012. 

I saw Geoff Ashdown's Tower Pier several times including at ExpoEM and at one of the Stoke Mandeville exhibitions.

I hope someone has taken it on following his death last year as it's a wonderful layout and amazing for just three metres in total length including the cassette fiddle yard.

It's in EM but I did have a crack at reproducing the plan in the same dimensions with Streamline mediums. but note that the pointwork in the goods sidings I've represented with a double slip is actually two interlaced points as shown in the SBD 

I think the interlaced points are clear in this  photo - taken in 2014 ( I think at Stoke Mandeville) which shows all the pointwork apart from the releasing crossover.

The separate goods yard aside, it's not quite operationally identical to Minories as the single slip doesn't enable up (inbound) trains to access platform 2. I don't know if this was deliberately to make it a bit more challengint to operate or jsut because a double slip was too hard to build reliable in the space available.  

The overall steam-era Widened Lines atmosphere aside (The mythical Tower Pier was supposed to be an extension of them) , two things I particularly liked about Tower Pier were the trick of having the two sidings representing St. Catherine's Dock hidden under a hinged roadway  and, for DC, making the whole layout live on one controller but installing "brakes" (i.e switched dead sections) everywhere a loco could legitimately be stopped.   As shown in the diagram below. 

 

 

 

If anyone's interested I'll happily post a few more of my images of Tower Pier

 

Edited February 25 by Pacific231G

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

the pointwork in the goods sidings I've represented with a double slip is actually two interlaced points as shown in the SBD 

That looks like a Barry Slip:

 

 

[Flying Pig]

9 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Where is it cached by Google ?

 

I googled "Geoff Ashdown tower pier" and got a lot of images linked to various RMweb threads, so it hasn't been reposted elsewhere afaik.

 

 

[Flying Pig]

9 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

If anyone's interested I'll happily post a few more of my images of Tower Pier

 

Please do.  I agree it is a very fine layout and I do hope it won't be lost.  It's a layout that benefits from being well integrated into its railway surroundings, which gives even almost vestigial trackwork like the goods roads much more presence and interest.  A great use of limited space and always well presented when I saw it.

[CaptainBiggles]

Loving the photos and plans of Geoff's Tower Pier, I'd not really seen / studied it before. I think the concept of two separate lines is novel and creates interesting operating potential. Noting that the top half is essentially a straight Minories, if it were to retain the natural kink of CJF's original, would the lower part of Tower Pier work betterif reversed? I.e. the two sidings ran along the throat and entry to the station rather than parallel to the platforms. (Geographically St Katherine's Dock is in that direction too tbh!)

 

Not got Anyrail on this laptop - anyone want to sketch it up for me? ;-)

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, CaptainBiggles said:

Noting that the top half is essentially a straight Minories, if it were to retain the natural kink of CJF's original

 

It isn't quite, as platform 2 is departure only.  The layout of the station is a bit quirky with the main arrival platform (with loco release) 'wrong side' and we would probably have torn it to bits if it had been posted on here.  But Geoff had created a lot of lore concerning the history and operation of the station that made sense of it - he explained it to me at an exhibition and only I wish that I could remember the details of what he said.

 

@Pacific231G do you have a picture of the diagram of routes connecting to Tower Pier that you could post here, please?   

[CaptainBiggles]

Thanks @Flying Pig, I did notice that about P2. Forgive my ignorance, but how does a "departure-only" platform work IRL? A train needs to be marshalled there so it arrives empty from somewhere - possibly in pieces I assume. But in Tower Pier, where do the coaches come from?

 

That said (and this is what I love about this thread - the debate!), my query stands: Minories has 2 roads at the RH, 3 at the LH. The bottom half of Tower Pier (as drawn) has 2 RH / 4 LH. Reversing it would tessalate it much more neatly, no?

[RobinofLoxley]

49 minutes ago, CaptainBiggles said:

Forgive my ignorance, but how does a "departure-only" platform work IRL?

So far as i know, departure only means that there is no direct access from the arriving line to the platform, but there is from the platform to the departing line. In order to get stock onto the departure only platform it has to be shunted, probably by a station pilot, that will move the stock in question from a standard dual access platform out onto the departures line, then shunt it back in from the departure line into the departure only platform. The pilot then uncouples and moves away so that the hauling loco can couple up, probably via a similar manoevre to the pilot.

[Nearholmer]

Slightly off-piste, but:

 

In the early days of railways, many termini, including some quite small ones, were arranged to have an “arrival  side” and a “departure side”, and such point-work as there was (a lot of shunting of trains was by turntable in the very earliest days) was arranged so that only arrivals could arrive on the arrival side, and departures depart from the departure side, a feature that was especially important before facing point locks were invented>reliable>mandated.

 

Such termini often had carriage sidings between the arrival and departure roads.
 

Some stations hung onto the basics of this layout for a surprisingly long time, even though it was inefficient in space and shunting terms. I think Euston was one that did for long-distance trains, for instance, probably because nearly all main-line trains went to and from the carriage sheds/sidings between turns.

 

Departure-only platforms sometimes also existed to deal with one-way traffic like newspapers, where the empty vans were propelled in from nearby sidings.

Edited February 26 by Nearholmer

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, CaptainBiggles said:

That said (and this is what I love about this thread - the debate!), my query stands: Minories has 2 roads at the RH, 3 at the LH. The bottom half of Tower Pier (as drawn) has 2 RH / 4 LH. Reversing it would tessalate it much more neatly, no?

 

Yes, it would fit more neatly into the rectangular space, but is that what is wanted?  Perhaps implying that the layout fans out beyond what we can see is better?    As I've already said, one of the strong points about this layout is the way it implies its context beyond the rather small box in which it is built.

[Pacific231G]

4 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

It isn't quite, as platform 2 is departure only.  The layout of the station is a bit quirky with the main arrival platform (with loco release) 'wrong side' and we would probably have torn it to bits if it had been posted on here.  But Geoff had created a lot of lore concerning the history and operation of the station that made sense of it - he explained it to me at an exhibition and only I wish that I could remember the details of what he said.

 

@Pacific231G do you have a picture of the diagram of routes connecting to Tower Pier that you could post here, please?   

Yes I do. It's Geoff Ashdown's own drawing rather so I think it's OK to post it. 

Can you remember anything of his explanation? I still suspect the sheer bu**eration of building a reliable double slip was the real reason as also for the interlaced points in the goods yard.  

I think this 'legend' is similar to the one Tom Cunnington came up with for his Minories (GN) also in EM though that was a pure Minories. 

To see how platform 2 was used, this movements sheet that I captured at ExpoEM in 2014 may help. 

 

5 hours ago, CaptainBiggles said:

Loving the photos and plans of Geoff's Tower Pier, I'd not really seen / studied it before. I think the concept of two separate lines is novel and creates interesting operating potential. Noting that the top half is essentially a straight Minories, if it were to retain the natural kink of CJF's original, would the lower part of Tower Pier work betterif reversed? I.e. the two sidings ran along the throat and entry to the station rather than parallel to the platforms. (Geographically St Katherine's Dock is in that direction too tbh!)

 

Not got Anyrail on this laptop - anyone want to sketch it up for me? ;-)

 Geoff Ashdown isn't the only modeller to have used separate lines at different levels.  Roy Emery did it with a greater vertical separation with Fenchurch Cutting.

With Tower Pier, the idea is that Minories Junction is the next box where the singled branch to St. Katherine's Dock bifurcates. The dock branch swings off to the left just before the overbridge (and is actually hidden under the road) but the cramped nature of the docks necessitated a two road shunting yard running alongside the station platforms being shoehorned in to the cramped station area to sort out wagons going to and coming from the dock (which  in reality had no wharf side tracks) . Given Tower Pier station's location between Minories and Vine Street facing onto Tower Hill, the docks branch is actually in the correct orientation. One of my favorite vignettes on Tower Pier is the dummy District and Circle lines passing underneath the station throat with an Undeground train that never actually moves. 

 

 

 

Edited February 26 by Pacific231G

[Pacific231G]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Slightly off-piste, but:

 

In the early days of railways, many termini, including some quite small ones, were arranged to have an “arrival  side” and a “departure side”, and such point-work as there was (a lot of shunting of trains was by turntable in the very earliest days) was arranged so that only arrivals could arrive on the arrival side, and departures depart from the departure side, a feature that was especially important before facing point locks were invented>reliable>mandated.

 

Such termini often had carriage sidings between the arrival and departure roads.
 

Some stations hung onto the basics of this layout for a surprisingly long time, even though it was inefficient in space and shunting terms. I think Euston was one that did for long-distance trains, for instance, probably because nearly all main-line trains went to and from the carriage sheds/sidings between turns.

 

Departure-only platforms sometimes also existed to deal with one-way traffic like newspapers, where the empty vans were propelled in from nearby sidings.

With Minories, I'd reckon to extend the loco spur to form a departures only bay platform which would still be a good place for the station pilot to lurk. 

You can still see evidence of a separate arrivals and departure platform at Paddington where the waiting and refreshment rooms, ticket office and toilets were (and to an extent still are) alongside platform 1,  used for the most important expresses, while the wide arrivals platform between 8 and 9 has no facilities for passengers but a whole circulation scheme for taxis to enter, pick up arriving passengers and leave.   

[Flying Pig]

2 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Yes I do. It's Geoff Ashdown's own drawing rather so I think it's OK to post it. 

Can you remember anything of his explanation? I still suspect the sheer bu**eration of building a reliable double slip was the real reason as also for the interlaced points in the goods yard.  

 

Thanks - that's probably the one I saw on the layout.

 

Unfortunately, I can't really remember anything of what Geoff said.

[St Enodoc]

7 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Some stations hung onto the basics of this layout for a surprisingly long time

Bath Queen Square/Green Park and Cheltenham St James, for example.

[RobinofLoxley]

Just asking, but how many UK stations actually conform(ed) to the Minories prototype, viz a 3-platform terminus with a loco layover/shunt thing, with some parallel moves for arrivals and departures, and the outermost (furthest from the station) turnout being a trailing turnout on the departures side)?

[Pacific231G]

On 08/03/2024 at 17:20, RobinofLoxley said:

Just asking, but how many UK stations actually conform(ed) to the Minories prototype, viz a 3-platform terminus with a loco layover/shunt thing, with some parallel moves for arrivals and departures, and the outermost (furthest from the station) turnout being a trailing turnout on the departures side)?

I'm not sure that any fulfil all those parameters. Birmingham Moor St. was the obvious example of a three-platform terminus with a busy service. Windsor (Riverside) also had three platforms off a double track and would be quite an interesting prototype though not so intense.

Of the other London termini, Marylebone had four platforms and wasn't just a suburban service but I think Fenchurch Street,. also with four platforms,  was about the most compact of them. Although the terrminal road at Liverpool Street (Met) and certain other aspects of the station were Cyril Freezer's direct inspiration for Minories, he said that the idea in Minories of a suburban route worked entirely by tank engines came from the LT&S line out of Fenchurch Street.  There were three terminal roads at Blackfriars with loco layovers but also two through platforms for High Holborn and the Widened lines. The suburban section of Kings Cross with its overall roof and a solid wall between it and the main line station had three platforms and the air of being a separate station.   

Ealing Broadway's District Railway terminus was (and still is)  a three platform terminus and, with its short overall roof and original station building (now shops and offices) at street level with stairs down to the platforms is worth looking at as a model if not as a prototype. It must have had some turnover pattern of operation between its opening 1879 and electrification (still partly loco hauled) in 1905. It was originally a two platform station and I don't know if the third platform road was added with its electrification but the 25 inch OS map (National Library of Scotland) definitely shows a loco layover road with what looks like a coaling stage. The same thing must have also been true of the Hammersmith and City terminus at Hammersmith which is also a three platform station (and even now quite Minories like in its appearance) though there was a loco depot there in steam days rather than just a layover track and it too may have been a two platform station before electrification. 

Edited March 9 by Pacific231G

[RobinofLoxley]

@Pacific231G Thanks for asnwering my query and not debating the (Obviously arguable) criteria.