Theory of General Minories

[Pacific231G]

I've long been fascinated by Minories (even though the overall S curve does look a bit as though the designers aimed the mainline at the station and missed) It is that complex looking pointwork and the snaking that makes it seem so "mainline" but the effect is rather lost if the coaches appear to be heading in different directions.

 

I've been doing some experiments with a couple of not very long corridor vehicles (Roco H0 baggage cars 230mm long over buffers fitted with close coupling units) With Peco's long points (nominal 5ft radius) both a conventional crossover and the two back to back points used in Minories both gave a lateral displacement of about 3.5-4mm or about a third of the width of the corridor connection.This is noticeable but doesn't look too awful and buffer locking would have been avoided.

The total length of the Peco long crossover over the ends of the switch rails is 480mm and that compares with the crossover leading to the Greenford branch (which handles HSTs with no problem) which is 55-56  metres over the switch ends which scales to about 640mm

The displacement though iis more than proportionally less as this frame showing the greatest movement while taking the West Ealing crossover on  a two car Class 165 unit illustrates.

I'm wondering therefore whether Peco's geometry for their 5ft radiius points  to get the same final angle as the other points in the range loses some of the advantage of the greater radius or whether any pair of nominally five foot radius points would have the same problem. 

I then tried a crossover made up from medium (nomjnal 3ft) radius points and that gave a displacement of 6-6.5mm or about half the gangway width and about 7mm when arranged toe to toe as in  Minories and with the two vehicles I was trying it out with would have suffered buffer locking. The Peco medium point has the same geometry as my templates for SMP 3ft radius points so I'd guess you'd always get this with such a short point and all the Minories layouts I've operated or seen, including the MRC's  EM tribute, exhibit this over the the middle points.

Four of the five foot radius points making up two crossivers on straight track would be reasonably satisfactory but rather long. With medium radius crossovers I found the movement excessive  too great and mixed crossovers with one medium and on long were no better.   I felt the best compromise was to use the Minories throat but using larger radius points for the central pair of back to back points and medium radius for the outer pair. This would enable the throat to fit with reasonable wriggle room onto a metre long baseboard (which for space reasons was my personal design brief)  so I could see Minories somewehere in my future. It wouild be interesting to try it with say Tillig points (I use H0 so the sleeper spacing isn't an issue on main line trackage) 

 

 

[Chimer]

An alternative solution would be to use non-corridor steam-hauled stock ...... 

[Satan's Goldfish]

Or articulated stock.....that may be a little thin on the ground for UK prototype though.

[clecklewyke]

Minories drawback is it was designed as an urban terminus with engine changes on all trains, which was a very rare mode of operation on BR away from a few London Termini, Moorgate etc.

 

Generally at a terminus either  a pilot would come on and draw the stock away or the loco would run round.

 

Equally in steam days it was rare for trains to be able to arrive at all platforms of a terminus,  from memory trains could only arrive at the 2 arrival platforms at Cheltenham St James but could depart from all 4.

 

It would certainly be the case at branch line terminals that the loco would normally run round the train as there would not be enough traffic to justify a pilot which would stand idle for most of the time. It is also the case that this facility existed in many city terminals but I doubt it would be used at busy times because it was only appropriate for tank engines (or diesels/electrics ) to run round and it would usually require the adjoining platform line to be empty.

 

The L&Y side of Bradford Exchange was one terminus where there were no run-round crossovers, little use of a pilot and all four platforms could be used for incoming and outgoing. So there was no running round. Most arriving trains were pulled out to carriage sidings, usually using an engine off a previous arrival. The loco of the incoming train would then either go to the MPD or be used for another outgoing train or ECS move, very like CJF's idea for Minories. There was thus little need for a pilot engine although the working timetable does imply that there was one as a few shunt moves could otherwise not take place.

 

I chose it as the basis for the design and operation of my fictitious Bradford North Western. I have now moved house and need to fit BNW in a shorter space, so I am very impressed with Clive's design for Sheffield Exchange - a very similar concept to BNW. Is your design copyright, Clive?   

 

Ian

[Pete 75C]

I chose it as the basis for the design and operation of my fictitious Bradford North Western. I have now moved house and need to fit BNW in a shorter space, so I am very impressed with Clive's design for Sheffield Exchange - a very similar concept to BNW. Is your design copyright, Clive?   

 

Ian

 

Hope not. I might have "accidentally" saved Clive's plan to a folder on my hard drive for possible future use... 

[Joseph_Pestell]

I've long been fascinated by Minories (even though the overall S curve does look a bit as though the designers aimed the mainline at the station and missed) It is that complex looking pointwork and the snaking that makes it seem so "mainline" but the effect is rather lost if the coaches appear to be heading in different directions.

 

I've been doing some experiments with a couple of not very long corridor vehicles (Roco H0 baggage cars 230mm long over buffers fitted with close coupling units) With Peco's long points (nominal 5ft radius) both a conventional crossover and the two back to back points used in Minories both gave a lateral displacement of about 3.5-4mm or about a third of the width of the corridor connection.This is noticeable but doesn't look too awful and buffer locking would have been avoided.

The total length of the Peco long crossover over the ends of the switch rails is 480mm and that compares with the crossover leading to the Greenford branch (which handles HSTs with no problem) which is 55-56  metres over the switch ends which scales to about 640mm

The displacement though iis more than proportionally less as this frame showing the greatest movement while taking the West Ealing crossover on  a two car Class 165 unit illustrates.

Crossover displacement W Ealing.jpg

I'm wondering therefore whether Peco's geometry for their 5ft radiius points  to get the same final angle as the other points in the range loses some of the advantage of the greater radius or whether any pair of nominally five foot radius points would have the same problem. 

I then tried a crossover made up from medium (nomjnal 3ft) radius points and that gave a displacement of 6-6.5mm or about half the gangway width and about 7mm when arranged toe to toe as in  Minories and with the two vehicles I was trying it out with would have suffered buffer locking. The Peco medium point has the same geometry as my templates for SMP 3ft radius points so I'd guess you'd always get this with such a short point and all the Minories layouts I've operated or seen, including the MRC's  EM tribute, exhibit this over the the middle points.

Four of the five foot radius points making up two crossivers on straight track would be reasonably satisfactory but rather long. With medium radius crossovers I found the movement excessive  too great and mixed crossovers with one medium and on long were no better.   I felt the best compromise was to use the Minories throat but using larger radius points for the central pair of back to back points and medium radius for the outer pair. This would enable the throat to fit with reasonable wriggle room onto a metre long baseboard (which for space reasons was my personal design brief)  so I could see Minories somewehere in my future. It wouild be interesting to try it with say Tillig points (I use H0 so the sleeper spacing isn't an issue on main line trackage) 

 

It is all about that 12 degree crossing angle. If you were to use #6 turnouts (Peco Code 83 or Shinohara) at about 9 degrees or #8 turnouts at about 7 degrees, you will get a much better result.

 

Edit: You can of course, if keeping your platforms and approach tracks straight, reduce the track centres from 50mm to 44mm. That makes quite a difference to the length of a crossover.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Joseph_Pestell

[Pacific231G]

It is all about that 12 degree crossing angle. If you were to use #6 turnouts (Peco Code 83 or Shinohara) at about 9 degrees or #8 turnouts at about 7 degrees, you will get a much better result.

 

Edit: You can of course, if keeping your platforms and approach tracks straight, reduce the track centres from 50mm to 44mm. That makes quite a difference to the length of a crossover.

Thanks Joseph

The #8s are rather long at about 12 1/2 inches so you'd need at least four feet for a double track throat. The Peco 83 #6 turnouts look more promising as they're shorter than the code 100 & 75 long points by a good inch.  I'll print off some of Peco's plans and try rolling stock on them.

The problem for me is that  the sleeper spacing of Peco's code 100 & 75 is pretty much to scale in H0 for modern European  track with 60cm sleeper spacing. The American 83 line track uses much narrower and more closely spaced ties which don't really look the part ina European setting. They're tempting though because just six 83 line #6 turnouts would make up either a Minories or double crossover throat for three platforms and the loco spur  in less than a metre. With a bit of judicious trimming of the ends they would even just about fit onto a three foot board.

 

By comparison the pointwork used at Paris Bastille was mostlyTg 0.13 or #7 with a crossing angle of about 7 1/2 degree. This did take full length bogie coaches, mainly ex Reichsbahn  stock used from 1945 until the early 1960s but also long distance trains immediatey after the war when the Mulhouse line's connection oto Gare de l'Est was out. The Bastille approach didn't though include any reverse curves. Tg 0.13  (it refers to the tangent of the crossing angle) was SNCF's sharpest standard crossing/frog with a speed limit of 40kph and I think it was normally used for goods sidings. 

Edited September 4, 2014 by Pacific231G

[Clive Mortimore]

It would certainly be the case at branch line terminals that the loco would normally run round the train as there would not be enough traffic to justify a pilot which would stand idle for most of the time. It is also the case that this facility existed in many city terminals but I doubt it would be used at busy times because it was only appropriate for tank engines (or diesels/electrics ) to run round and it would usually require the adjoining platform line to be empty.

 

The L&Y side of Bradford Exchange was one terminus where there were no run-round crossovers, little use of a pilot and all four platforms could be used for incoming and outgoing. So there was no running round. Most arriving trains were pulled out to carriage sidings, usually using an engine off a previous arrival. The loco of the incoming train would then either go to the MPD or be used for another outgoing train or ECS move, very like CJF's idea for Minories. There was thus little need for a pilot engine although the working timetable does imply that there was one as a few shunt moves could otherwise not take place.

 

I chose it as the basis for the design and operation of my fictitious Bradford North Western. I have now moved house and need to fit BNW in a shorter space, so I am very impressed with Clive's design for Sheffield Exchange - a very similar concept to BNW. Is your design copyright, Clive?   

 

Ian

 

Hope not. I might have "accidentally" saved Clive's plan to a folder on my hard drive for possible future use... 

 

The speed I am modelling these days by the time I complete the layout I will have someone say, "He has gone and copied so and so's train set"

 

I am more than happy to see what other people can do with the basic idea.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Clive Mortimore

[RJS1977]

An alternative solution would be to use non-corridor steam-hauled stock ...... 

 

Even some multiple units were non-corridor = Class 304s come immediately to mind.

[Izzy]

Interesting to note that it is 2 years since this thread started, and it's still going strong with a wealth of ideas and views. Shows really, as if it were needed, just how good CJF's original plan idea was with regard to the core principle of an urban/town/city station.

 

Izzy

[ThePurplePrimer]

Has there been any ( good ) versions of Minories that included some goods element to it ?

 

I like the idea of Minories but would want some excuse to have plenty of wagons on the layout too

[Pete 75C]

Has there been any ( good ) versions of Minories that included some goods element to it ?

 

I like the idea of Minories but would want some excuse to have plenty of wagons on the layout too

 

I think realistically all that would work from a non-passenger aspect would be parcels traffic. That said, I do remember seeing an urban terminus along the lines of Minories that featured a "cripple" siding allowing for a variety of wagon types. Can't for the life of me remember what it was called...?

[Karhedron]

Has there been any ( good ) versions of Minories that included some goods element to it ?

 

I like the idea of Minories but would want some excuse to have plenty of wagons on the layout too

There was a plan for a "Minories Mk2" which included a goods shed next to the station along the lines of the one at Birmingham Moor Street. I think the plan would have been for parcels and van traffic (serving the local shops with perishables for example).

 

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee199/Karhedronuk/minories4.jpg

 

In a city, most bulk freight would probably have been handled at dedicated yards rather than at a station. The one exception that spings to mind would be perishables such as fish, vegetables and milk. Bottling plants were often close to stations as they needed to reach the populace quickly while the milk was still fresh. The IMS plant at Marylebone is a nice example that could easily be incorporated into a compact urban Terminus. There were 4 platforms for pasengers and 2 platforms for milk, fish and parcels.

[t-b-g]

Has there been any ( good ) versions of Minories that included some goods element to it ?

 

I like the idea of Minories but would want some excuse to have plenty of wagons on the layout too

 

My version has some goods facilites. Whether it is any good or not is not for me to say.

 

I have two passenger platforms and have created a fish/parcels dock and a centre holding road on Mansfield Market Place. (Photo at an early stage is included in Post 27 of the thread)

 

The long term plan is to connect two layouts together, so that goods trains have to come in to the terminus (arriving at the centre road) to be reversed on to the other station, which has goods facilities.

 

Until then, the centre road is used to receive fish/van/parcels/newspaper trains which are shunted to the dock by the pilot. Then when it is time for them to go again, a train is made up in the centre road for departure.

 

When not in use for goods, the centre road is used for holding a passenger set of ECS, keeping the two platforms clear.

 

I have lost two platform faces but I have increased the number of potential types of operation.

 

Tony

Edited September 5, 2014 by t-b-g

[trisonic]

Actually that’s my problem with the Minories plan. Watching a series of short passenger trains going backwards and forwards is just not entertaining enough for me....from an operational point of view.

 

I prefer this urban layout - it’s worth a look: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/83030-train-spotting-at-finsbury-square/

 

Best, Pete.

[Satan's Goldfish]

One of my minories plans from a while ago had a pair of sidings in front of the fiddle yard for wagons. The access 'point' was similar to the front platform but mirrored at the other end of the approach point work. Freight would have been pulled into a platform and then shunted back into the sidings.

[ThePurplePrimer]

One of my minories plans from a while ago had a pair of sidings in front of the fiddle yard for wagons. The access 'point' was similar to the front platform but mirrored at the other end of the approach point work. Freight would have been pulled into a platform and then shunted back into the sidings.

 

I am liking that idea 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Let's not forget that quite a lot of freight (in covered vans) was handled at the platforms of city termini; mostly during the night when the passenger service was not running. But others had bays specifically for handling parcels etc.

[Satan's Goldfish]

I am liking that idea

 

if you click on the 'North Quay' link in my signature below and scroll up 1 post there's 2 variations of the track plan there. (Note: if you're reading this post in the future, the link may not be there anymore, it's already a dead project really)

[clecklewyke]

Actually that’s my problem with the Minories plan. Watching a series of short passenger trains going backwards and forwards is just not entertaining enough for me....from an operational point of view.

 

I prefer this urban layout - it’s worth a look: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/83030-train-spotting-at-finsbury-square/

 

Best, Pete.

I quite agree that Finsbury Square looks excellent and there appear to be a wide range of trains but that can also be the case with a Minories-based layout.

 

I did build a version of Minories, the one with the goods shed, and we had a wide variety of trains running on it - limited only by my imagination (and wallet!). The timetable was based on the real 1958 one for the L&Y side of Bradford Exchange and I wrote a computer program which mimicked Peter Denny's "Automatic Crispin" to offer trains using proper bell codes from the fiddle yard. Unfortunately it was in ZX Spectrum Basic, so not easily ported to any other system but the current Bradford North Western/Clecklewyke timetable is derived from it.

 

Ian 

[Pacific231G]

Actually that’s my problem with the Minories plan. Watching a series of short passenger trains going backwards and forwards is just not entertaining enough for me....from an operational point of view.

 

I prefer this urban layout - it’s worth a look: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/83030-train-spotting-at-finsbury-square/

 

Best, Pete.

I agree about Finsbury Square Pete, the thread is well worth reading, and the need for a bit more variety. A few years ago Bryan Thomas invited me to operate his excellent "Newford" 0 scale layout at Watford Fine Scale. Newford was closely based on the original Minories and I did feel the need for some goods facilities to add variety. OTOH if you operate with loco hauled trains and try to run a fairly intensive service I'm told it can be quite challenging. I believe that's how the MRC team ran their EM gauge tribute layout.

 

The original goods version of Minories did seem a bit awkward as all goods trains had to shunt in and out of platform three and the goods shed would rather hide the passenger station.

 

I got to discuss Minories with CJF at one of the Chatham shows. He was rightly proud of the plan but for goods far preferred his later version with a kick back yard occupying the empty space in front of the throat.

 

The short central siding in the goods yard was a new addition by him to the published versions and was to hold the brake van or vans while the train was being shunted. That's not something I'd have considered but maybe it was a feature of British goods yards?

Edited September 5, 2014 by Pacific231G

[Flying Pig]

Bradfield Gloucester Square is not much more extensive than Minories and features a variety of long distance and parcels trains among the locals. 

 

Another approach to freight operation can be seen in Geoff Ashdown's excellent Tower Pier (which has certainly appeared on RMweb if not somewhere in this very thread).  Here the freight lines are kept entirely separate and provide variation in levels as well as traffic.  It has integrated signalling too, though the Crispins remain flesh and blood.

 

Part of the secret in both cases is the imagined hinterland of the model which justifies the variety of destinations and trains (East London and the West Riding are both very fertile in this respect). It ain't all about what you can see.

[Karhedron]

I got to discuss Minories with CJF at one of the Chatham shows. He was rightly proud of the plan but for goods far preferred his later version with a kick back yard occupying the empty space in front of the throat.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=466976]minories with goods CJF.jpg[/url]

I always thought that space was crying out to be used for something. I came up with a couple of variations that put either a servicing point for locos or a milk depot on that kickback (not that I have got around to building either but maybe one day ).

Edited September 5, 2014 by Karhedron

[leopardml2341]

Bradfield Gloucester Square is not much more extensive than Minories and features a variety of long distance and parcels trains among the locals. 

 

Another approach to freight operation can be seen in Geoff Ashdown's excellent Tower Pier (which has certainly appeared on RMweb if not somewhere in this very thread).  Here the freight lines are kept entirely separate and provide variation in levels as well as traffic.  It has integrated signalling too, though the Crispins remain flesh and blood.

 

Part of the secret in both cases is the imagined hinterland of the model which justifies the variety of destinations and trains (East London and the West Riding are both very fertile in this respect). It ain't all about what you can see.

Having operated Bradfield at a number of exhibitions - I agree that it is the' non existent but suggested' scenarios that contributes to  credibility. Many of the 'watchers' expressed this sentiment too.#

 

Edited for spelling - and it still don't look right...............

Edited September 5, 2014 by leopardml2341

[Curlew]

At busy times, goods trains were often banned from urban termini and their approaches, as they got in the way of the intensive passenger service.