Minories Holborn viaduct

[Satan's Goldfish]

I think i'm getting somewhere now.

 

Catch point question ref below. there isn't space between the toe of the 3 way and the up main for a catch point (makes the curve to the goods siding too tight), from a signalling perspective could the points marked A and B be set for this function? A catch point has been added to the centre road where the plan is marked C, is this acceptable so close to the pilot road? and finally should Parcels P4 also have a catch point even though it can be used for departures?

 

 

I've added water columns to the platform ends and beside the Pilot Road and decided to keep the coaling area (mainly for the catch point issue above!), up main still acts as goods head shunt in quiet periods, and the whole scenic plan fits into 8x2 which is useful. How late could water columns be found at platform ends after the fall of steam? I know rule 1, but are they going to be acceptable with 80s diesels along side?

 

Thanks

[Flying Pig]

Nice plan. I don't know about catch points, but I think A and B would work as trap points

 

Some minor alterations:

 

- rightmost point on Up main replaced with a long to improve flow;

- I have an aversion to the Peco symmetric 3-throw so I've reworked your yard with the code 75 tandem;

- curves on platform 4 and the centre road tweaked to improve flow (centre road needs a trap - could be a dummy);

- loco headshunts/pilot siding separated from the goods road, partly for operational convenience, partly just to improve the look;

- got carried away by the resemblance to Kings Cross and added a stabling siding to the loco yard

 

 

BTW, I don't think parcels need be confined to platform 4 and conversely, it can be used as an ordinary departure platform most of the time.

 

Edit - apologies that it's in Anyrail as I don't have XtrkCad on this computer.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Flying Pig

[Satan's Goldfish]

Cheers Simon, whoops, yes trap points!

 

I'll admit it's drawn using points I have in stock hence all mediums (apart from the curved) and the symmetrical 3 way.

 

I like the idea of separating the goods siding from the loco coal and adding the extra loco siding, will have to see if that fits, (trying to limit to 2x 4x2 boards, again as I have them in stock!) That coal kick back was the part I wasn't quite happy with on the plan in post 274.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Satan's Goldfish

[Flying Pig]

Forgot about the board join, but I think that the symmetrical 3-way would bring the warehouse siding point back across the 4' divide being slightly shorter. The long is neither here nor there and since the whole layout still has a somewhat CJF ambience, mediums are probably more in keeping. Have you considered doing it in Tri-ang TT?

[Satan's Goldfish]

Forgot about the board join, but I think that the symmetrical 3-way would bring the warehouse siding point back across the 4' divide being slightly shorter. The long is neither here nor there and since the whole layout still has a somewhat CJF ambience, mediums are probably more in keeping. Have you considered doing it in Tri-ang TT?

LOL, I don't need a 5th scale in the house, it was hard enough to part myself from z scale

[Budgie]

You could get rid of the 3-way by replacing the adjacent diamond crossing with a single slip.

[Satan's Goldfish]

You could get rid of the 3-way by replacing the adjacent diamond crossing with a single slip.

Gave my single slip to 'bigbeeline' as it was interfering too much with trying to come up with my own plans. The part I've drawn with the 3 way, diamond, and Rh medium would be an exercise in point modification for me (I've already tackled 'bending' a diamond a crossing to a 3' radius, chopping points and crossings is next, then it's the slippery slope to building own track!)

[Flying Pig]

Forgot about the board join, but I think that the symmetrical 3-way would bring the warehouse siding point back across the 4' divide being slightly shorter.

 

Nope but going back to a medium on the Up main does.

 

Gave my single slip to 'bigbeeline' as it was interfering too much with trying to come up with my own plans. The part I've drawn with the 3 way, diamond, and Rh medium would be an exercise in point modification for me

 

As I've drawn things with the additional point, it wouldn't take more than a very small amount of paring down the diamond to bring the pilot siding too close to the centre road, so there's not much to be gained by it (other than practice in the dark arts).

 

 

Finally, replacing the three-way with a single slip, which would work well, if one were available.  Turntable is about 60' in both cases.

 

 

 

 

[Siberian Snooper]

That last one, has a nice flow to it.

[danstercivicman]

I do like those two last plans. I guess goods has to run into one of the platforms then back out then shunt into the goods sidings?

[Flying Pig]

There's just the one goods siding really - the warehouse top left - and any shunting is done on the up main at quiet periods. I'd make the warehouse a specialist one, for perishables say, and feed it with tail traffic and short trip workings from a nearby yard, which should be enough interest for a single operator and provide scope for interesting vans too. As there's no runround, I'd be tempted to propel trips into the station.

 

It is possible to add at least one more goods siding and even an up goods line to allow shunting clear of the main, but both risk making the plan look crowded in my view.

[Satan's Goldfish]

As much as I like flying pigs designs, for the cramped look I can picture in my head I've stuck to a similar plan as the one further up the page, but replaced the curved point with a small radius y to free up a little space. A little extra length to the goods and pilot roads too.

 

 

I was almost in danger of getting 2 sheets of 2'×4' out of the garage earlier...

[cromptonnut]

You know you want to ... when I move, one of these plans will be a removeable terminus layout that can be used for exhibitions with a fiddle yard attached - as part of a grander plan that hopefully involves a loop round the garden as well if SWMBO can be persuaded... if we had side access it'd go round the front garden as well but digging a tunnel under the house is apparently not permitted.

[Satan's Goldfish]

You know you want to ... when I move, one of these plans will be a removeable terminus layout that can be used for exhibitions with a fiddle yard attached - as part of a grander plan that hopefully involves a loop round the garden as well if SWMBO can be persuaded... if we had side access it'd go round the front garden as well but digging a tunnel under the house is apparently not permitted.

Sounds like an obstacle, not a barrier to me. Remember, it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission

[danstercivicman]

Getting goods into Minories is proving very difficult.   Its also proving hard to expand the plan.  Here are my latest themed layouts (not truly Minories).

[Pacific231G]

You know you want to ... when I move, one of these plans will be a removeable terminus layout that can be used for exhibitions with a fiddle yard attached - as part of a grander plan that hopefully involves a loop round the garden as well if SWMBO can be persuaded... if we had side access it'd go round the front garden as well but digging a tunnel under the house is apparently not permitted.

If you're going into the garden you might want to consider 0 gauge. From 1948 to 1966 Bill Banwell (who with Frank Applegate effectively invented the terminus to fiddle yard with their Maybank layout before the war) used to exhibit parts of his 0 gauge Maycroft layout as a demonstration outdoor layout at the MRC's Easter exhibitions. One of Maycroft's stations was housed in a mocked up garden shed (with front and side wallsl but no roof and open at the back for viewing)  with a loop of  "outdoor" track running  in front of it  in a mocked up garden*. The rest of the time the station (one or other of two) lived in a real shed connected to the outdoor running tracks of the layout.

 

Bill Banwell was one of the real pioneers of the hobby but unfortunately wasn't much into writing about it and I've only ever found one article by him- a description of Maycroft. A very detailed (and inspiring) article about Maybank in the August 1934 MRN was written by someone else.

 

 

*According to an article about Bill Banwell in the December 1975 Model Railways, the "garden" was laid on tarpaulin to protect the floor of Central Hall and one year included a small lawn. The grass had to be cut every morning before the exhibition opened as the heat and light in the hall caused it to grow about two inches each day though by the end of the week it was finished.  

[Joseph_Pestell]

Getting goods into Minories is proving very difficult.   Its also proving hard to expand the plan.  Here are my latest themed layouts (not truly Minories).

I don't see why goods should be a problem.

 

Firstly, van trains could be handled in passenger platforms during the night and off-peak.

 

But apart from that, should not be difficult to arrange things so that goods train arrives in a platform road; pilot loco shunts train into headshunt (parallel with hidden sidings or even part of fiddleyard/traverser) and then back into goods warehouse, coal drops, or whatever.

[leopardml2341]

For my twopenn'orth, I think that the key to catering for goods traffic is to make it plausible for the area served, for instance I might not expect to see e.g. cement hopper wagons, chemical tanks or bogie bolsters loaded with plate or tubes etc at a suburban terminus (though no doubt someone will prove me wrong )

 

As Joseph says, 'out of (passenger) hours', platforms could be multifunctional for any goods that do not require special loading and unloading facilities as exemplified above.

Edited June 6, 2017 by leopardml2341

[Pacific231G]

For my twopenn'orth, I think that the key to catering for goods traffic is to make it plausible for the area served, for instance I might not expect to see e.g. cement hopper wagons, chemical tanks or bogie bolsters loaded with plate or tubes etc at a suburban terminus (though no doubt someone will prove me wrong )

 

As Joseph says, 'out of (passenger) hours', platforms could be multifunctional for any goods that do not require special loading and unloading facilities as exemplified above.

Before they started building Crossrail the main modern freight facility at Paddington was an aggregates depot!!  In general though I'd agree that bulk loads such as coal (apart from loco coal) certainly oil and definitely chemicals  were less common in the immediate precints of urban termini (though the coal yards could be very close, as at Marylebone) but the goods depot immediately alongside Birmingham Moor Street was handling a lot of building materials such as bricks and bagged cement as well as every kind of general goods. It depends a lot of course on the period you're modelling.

[Karhedron]

Goods in for an urban/suburban terminus are likely to feature a lot of van traffic. Parcels as well as goods for nearby shops would likely make up a good percentage of traffic (mush of it likely assorted foodstuffs from the country). A TPO would be another interesting possibility.

[danstercivicman]

This is my latest thinking...

 

Not Minories but an urban city terminus bolted onto s through station.

 

The inspiration is from the book. Also there is s picture of an 8F on parcels!!!

 

The freight in my new terminus will be:

 

1) Perishables in vans

 

2) milk

 

3) parcels

 

What's interesting is many of the old Victorian termini when out grown became good depots.

 

You may notice not all the lines connect- that's intentional I intend that there would be an off scene junction and that the station was built by two different pre grouping companies.

 

The other thing I have noticed in the book is that some of the Manchester (my heart goes out to those affected by the tradgedy), stations have no point rodding as it's done by other things (technical term). Now that's a huge bonus for complex stations!

 

Please let me know what you think? My next step is to try and bolt a minories throat into the suburban but!!!

[£1.38]

Manchester Mayfield was a very compact terminus. I assume there are photos in that book. It would make a nice model - maybe easier than making one up. There is a topic on here somewhere about it.

 

Just a suggestion - no obligation

[Satan's Goldfish]

An option I've toyed with in the past is using the Minories design as the bay platforms alongside a long single platform through station with a scissor crossing in the middle, like Cambridge (before the island platform was added). A carefully positioned scenic break means only half the length of the whole station need be modelled, chopping it visually at the scissors. The 'terminus' for passengers is still the focus of operations, but there's also the through platform and loops for freight to be held in. Operations can also be interesting as through passenger trains can end up running wrong line depending which end of the platform they're using.

[danstercivicman]

Cheers

 

Yes, Manchester has some cracking track plans.  Here is my latest (quite complicated thinking).  I hope it incorporates some of the ideas above?

 

Unfortunately the image misses off the start of the throat- please see the PDF...

 

The two stations will be built in slightly different styles.

 

The Minories portion will be for suburban workings and the mainline station behind it.  The goods loops at the top with possibly an extension of the far goods line as it can only be accessed from the down line.  It is mainly for parcels/meat as in the B'ham New Street Sidings concept.

Big Terminus.pdf

Edited June 9, 2017 by danstercivicman

[leopardml2341]

Manchester Mayfield was a very compact terminus. I assume there are photos in that book. It would make a nice model - maybe easier than making one up. There is a topic on here somewhere about it.

 

Just a suggestion - no obligation

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/101588-was-manchester-mayfield-station-and-latterly-parcels-terminal-ever-electrified/?hl=mayfield