Theory of General Minories

[kevinlms]

Hi Jane

Designing an angled approach with no reverses is fairly straightforward if you simply want to connect each platform to both of the main lines.

 

minories curved equivalent.jpg

For the equivalent of Minories the angle is double the crossing angle of the turnouts you're using so 24^o for Peco Streamline.

 

The challenge with Bastille,as an increasingly busy commuter station  was to redesign the approach to enable simultaneous arrivals and departures between both main lines and any two platforms in an abnormally short space. That meant using very short points ( about 1:7.5)  which in turn meant that trains couldn't be subject to any reverse curves such as a normal crossover.

.

This was the final version of the approach- based on a 1950s SNCF plan and checked against photos. I drew this up using Peco large radius points which are similar in length to the off-the-shelf turnouts used by SNCF. They achieved the whole thing in the equivalent length of eight turnouts which was an amazing piece of design.

 

Bastille 1969 H0 (aiguilles Peco longue) echelle H0.jpg

 

My reduced four platform version of Bastille only saved the length of a single turnout and is seven long. just two more than the minimum of five required to connect four platforms to both sides of a double track mainline if you don't need every parallel route.

 

For a more intense commuter operation you can have parallel moves between all three of Minories' platforms by adding a direct connection between platform three and the the up (inbound) main but with no reverse curves using an angled approach you lose a bit more than the length of a turnout from platform three

minories curved equivalent parallels.jpg

Am I correct in suggesting that because the approach to Bastille, was at an angle, that made it easy to achieve?

[Miss Prism]

For me, one of the essences of any Minories design is to allow for simultaneous arrivals and departures. Although a great space saver, THE ergonomic problem with sector plates is that any arrivals road set on the plate always needs a vacant adjacent road to its right to allow for such simultaneity. (Hence the popularity of cassettes.)

[Compound2632]

For me, one of the essences of any Minories design is to allow for simultaneous arrivals and departures. Although a great space saver, THE ergonomic problem with sector plates is that any arrivals road set on the plate always needs a vacant adjacent road to its right to allow for such simultaneity. (Hence the popularity of cassettes.)

 

Did I see somewhere - maybe here - or did I just dream of a rotating drum of cassettes - like a very broad Ferris wheel?

Edited September 18, 2017 by Compound2632

[Regularity]

You've got to start somewhere.

Absolutely.

 

They advice came from, I think, an early Ian Futers article, where he mentioned that you had to be prepared to scrap the first half dozen or so until you get the hang of it.

[Budgie]

Did I see somewhere - maybe here - or did I just dream of a rotating drum of cassettes - like a very broad Ferris wheel?

Are you thinking of the Nelevator (also available in OO)?

[Compound2632]

Are you thinking of the Nelevator (also available in OO)?

 

Not seen that before! More of a paternoster. What I was dreaming of was rather more rotary - though the nelevator takes up less width. Some work to be done on the precision of the vertical alignment, judging from the video.

[Compound2632]

With Bastille in mind, how about this? Not Minories but topologically similar. New Victoria Line, L.E. Carroll, Model Railway News January 1969:

 

 

With the crossovers on the curve, it's only the changes in radius that will cause carriage ends to be offset - a much smaller effect.

 

But what is of direct relevance to Minories is the very neat arrangement of the section switching, with power interlocked to points and key signals.

 

[Kubes]

One of my favourite layouts, certainly of its time but possessing that indefinable railwayness that many other more "sophisticated" scenic layouts failed to capture!

Edited September 18, 2017 by Kubes

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Clive.

 

Your layout looks interesting. Is there any more about it on another thread?

Hi David

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/87205-sheffield-exchange-replacing-seeps-with-tortoise/

 

The Minories based Sheffield Exchange does not exist anymore, house move a the promise of a bigger room put pay to it. It was great to operate, that is why no scenery got done on it.

[St Enodoc]

Hi Jane

Bastille is certainly a good source of inspiration.

Designing an angled approach with no reverses is fairly straightforward if you simply want to connect each platform to both of the main lines.

 

minories curved equivalent.jpg

For the equivalent of Minories the angle is double the crossing angle of the turnouts you're using so 24^o for Peco Streamline.

 

The challenge with Bastille,as an increasingly busy commuter station  was to redesign the approach to enable simultaneous arrivals and departures between both main lines and any two platforms in an abnormally short space. That meant using very short points ( about 1:7.5)  which in turn meant that trains couldn't be subject to any reverse curves such as a normal crossover.

.

This was the final version of the approach- based on a 1950s SNCF plan and checked against photos. I drew this up using Peco large radius points which are similar in length to the off-the-shelf turnouts used by SNCF. They achieved the whole thing in the equivalent length of eight turnouts which was an amazing piece of design.

 

Bastille 1969 H0 (aiguilles Peco longue) echelle H0.jpg

 

My reduced four platform version of Bastille only saved the length of a single turnout and is seven long. just two more than the minimum of five required to connect four platforms to both sides of a double track mainline if you don't need every parallel route.

 

For a more intense commuter operation you can have parallel moves between all three of Minories' platforms by adding a direct connection between platform three and the the up (inbound) main but with no reverse curves using an angled approach you lose a bit more than the length of a turnout from platform three

minories curved equivalent parallels.jpg

 

What's really frustrating about Bastille is that the original design records seem to be lost including those that appeared briefly in SNCF's film made just after it closed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwn8DzI0rpU

 

The original passenger terminus was just an arrival and departure platform either side of the main train shed with four tracks between them. The narrower and nastier (in terms of finish) second shed used after about 1879 for platform one and its loco release was built for something else. It may have just been a carriage shed but typical terminus design in the mid 1850s suggests a goods depot of some kind and if so I'd love to get hold of a track plan for that. 

That should work very nicely with curved points too (caveat - I'm thinking about handbuilt points with 48/30 inch radius, not necessarily Streamline).

[Pacific231G]

Am I correct in suggesting that because the approach to Bastille, was at an angle, that made it easy to achieve?

I wouldn't describe it as easy but perhaps easier than an equally short straight approach would have been, it was a fiendishly difficult exercise to push 20-25% more trains through the already struggling terminus without major rebuilding. They'd already installed electric traversers similar to those at Birmingham Moor Street to maximise the length of the trains of four wheel double-deck coaches that ran on the line but that hadn't been enough. Tweaking the throat design was only part of the process and a lot of work went into completely rethinking the rush hour timetable for the whole line and the movement of locos from arriving to departing trains at Bastille itself.

 

My latent interest in the station was rekindled by getting hold of a paper presented by the Est to a couple of professional bodies in 1931 describing the rationalisation in some detail.  . 

 

Had the approach been straight (like Fenchurch Street) then I suspect they would have had to widen the first couple of hundred metres of the viaduct to enable pointwork with a far shallower crossing angle to be used . That would have been both expensive and difficult and given that there was a major hospital on one side and a oublic road the other I'm not sure how they would have done it.  The railway's directors also wanted to avoid spending serious money on the line - commuters weren't the most profitable passengers - though they did order a fleet of more powerful Prairie tanks (later SNCF Class 1-131TB modelled in H0 scale by Hornby-Acho) to give better accelaration  . 

[Budgie]

My latent interest in the station was rekindled by getting hold of a paper presented by the Est to a couple of professional bodies in 1931 describing the rationalisation in some detail.

I would be most interested to see this paper. Is it available on the Internet, or can it be scanned in?

[Joseph_Pestell]

I wouldn't describe it as easy but perhaps easier than an equally short straight approach would have been, it was a fiendishly difficult exercise to push 20-25% more trains through the already struggling terminus without major rebuilding. They'd already installed electric traversers similar to those at Birmingham Moor Street to maximise the length of the trains of four wheel double-deck coaches that ran on the line but that hadn't been enough. Tweaking the throat design was only part of the process and a lot of work went into completely rethinking the rush hour timetable for the whole line and the movement of locos from arriving to departing trains at Bastille itself.

 

My latent interest in the station was rekindled by getting hold of a paper presented by the Est to a couple of professional bodies in 1931 describing the rationalisation in some detail.  . 

 

Had the approach been straight (like Fenchurch Street) then I suspect they would have had to widen the first couple of hundred metres of the viaduct to enable pointwork with a far shallower crossing angle to be used . That would have been both expensive and difficult and given that there was a major hospital on one side and a oublic road the other I'm not sure how they would have done it.  The railway's directors also wanted to avoid spending serious money on the line - commuters weren't the most profitable passengers - though they did order a fleet of more powerful Prairie tanks (later SNCF Class 1-131TB modelled in H0 scale by Hornby-Acho) to give better accelaration  . 

Seems surprising that they went for a rebuild and a new class of locos. Electrification would seem easier.

[Pacific231G]

Seems surprising that they went for a rebuild and a new class of locos. Electrification would seem easier.

That would have cost real money, far more than building fifty steam locos to replace others that in any case went on to other jobs. I believe also that for strategic reasons the Est was discouraged from electrification. The physical changes to the approach trackwork weren't really a rebuild, the changes were relatively modest as these signalling diagrams show.

 

 

The first was before the rationalisation and the second from after. The third is my update to  reflect the slighlty simplified final track plan still in use at closure in 1969 after passenger numbers had decreased from their peak in the 1920s.

Note that the square signals are absolute stop "carrés" and the diagonal ones are "avertissements", in this context roughly equivalent to our homes and starters and distant signals.

 

 

You can see from the diagrams that the changes between 1920 and 1925 were no more than a couple of extra crossovers but that was enough to enable parallel moves between any pair of platforms. That wouldn't have been possible between platforms  II & IIIwith the older scheme . 

 

The real work was done by the traffic department (service d'exploitation) in rationalising the entire service into a rhythm. During the evening rush trains always left in the same order from V to I with arriving trains and ECS movements replacing them in the same order so thst the whole cycle could be repeated. Also, instead of simply running semi-fast and stopping trains, the trains going further down the line ran fast to a particular station then as stoppers to their final destination. As a bonus these normally left from the same platforms so regular commuters didn't clog up the narrow concourse waiting to see which platform their train was leaving from. In the morning, where the rush was a bit more spread out, a similar rhythm worked in reverse.  

 

This wasn't very different from the intense steam hauled suburban services that ran from several of the London termini long before electrification and having a fleet of identical locos would have made for far more predictable operation with any loco able to haul any service. Bit boring for modelling though with Minories Cyril Freezer did suggest identical tank locos pulling identical trains*  with a simple reverse loop to get them back. . 

 

*In the original TT-3 version presumably the Jinties and suburban coaches that, with a few wagons, constituted Tri-ang's initial offer.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Harlequin]

I know I said "one last improvement" before but here are some refinements that would make my previous design work better:

 

 

Features:

• Loco cassettes on traverser (300mm wide for OO Pacifics!) allow locos to be turned and moved. I thought about other configurations but I think this is best because the small cassettes are easy to handle and don't have to move far. Other rolling stock stays on the traverser.
• The traverser is reduced to 6 roads so that all roads except T1 can connect to...
• ... a spur hidden in a building in the scenic part of the layout.
• All traverser lines, T1-T6, can be connected to either the Up or Down station running lines - so rolling stock can never get trapped.
• It would be very easy to gently curve the platform 1 and 2 lines so that they are perpendicular to the right-hand end of the baseboard and thus allow further extension if required. Generously curved platforms always look good! Shown with dashed lines.

The cassettes and the hidden spur allow locos to be turned and coupled to the front of a different set of rolling stock without appearing on the scenic part of the layout like this:

• Train runs out of station on the Up line to any traverser line (T1-T6).
• Loco runs onto the cassette at the end of the traverser and uncouples.
• The operator moves the cassette (turning it around if required) to a clear traverser line.
• The operator connects the traverser to the hidden spur and drives the loco across the traverser onto the hidden spur. (Remember to keep the warehouse doors closed so that the loco can't be seen from the station!)
• The operator connects the traverser line containing the desired rolling stock to the hidden spur and reverses the loco to couple up with it.
• The operator slides that traverser line across to connect with the Down line and the new train is ready to depart.

That way a loco can run around rolling stock on any of the lines T2-T6 but unfortunately not on T1 because that line can't be connected to the hidden spur. It would be possible if the traverser only had 5 lines but I think it's best to have as much storage as possible. There are lots of way to work around this problem, including manually repositioning the loco but the most interesting is this:

In the dead of night, when no-one's watching, open the warehouse doors and drive the loco from the hidden spur, through the goods yard onto the headshunt and back up the running lines to either Up or Down connected to T1. :-)

 

Edit: Fixed a mistake in drawing 6f. Replaced by tweaked drawing 6g.

 

PhilM

Edited September 19, 2017 by Harlequin

[Karhedron]

I know I said "one last improvement" before but here are some refinements that would make my previous design work better:

 

Pacific Terminus 6f.png

 

I really do like the refinements that have been made to the station throat. I currently have a small BLT but one day I plan to build something a bit bigger so I can run longer trains and something along these lines (pun intended ) will definitely be high on my list.

[imt]

"The cassettes and the hidden spur allow locos to be turned and coupled to the front of a different set of rolling stock without appearing on the scenic part of the layout like this:

 

• Train runs out of station on the Up line to any traverser line (T1-T6).
• Loco runs onto the cassette at the end of the traverser and uncouples.
• The operator moves the cassette (turning it around if required) to a clear traverser line.
• The operator connects the traverser to the hidden spur and drives the loco across the traverser onto the hidden spur. (Remember to keep the warehouse doors closed so that the loco can't be seen from the station!)
• The operator connects the traverser line containing the desired rolling stock to the hidden spur and reverses the loco to couple up with it.
• The operator slides that traverser line across to connect with the Down line and the new train is ready to depart.

That way a loco can run around rolling stock on any of the lines T2-T6 but unfortunately not on T1 because that line can't be connected to the hidden spur. It would be possible if the traverser only had 5 lines but I think it's best to have as much storage as possible. There are lots of way to work around this problem, including manually repositioning the loco but the most interesting is this:

In the dead of night, when no-one's watching, open the warehouse doors and drive the loco from the hidden spur, through the goods yard onto the headshunt and back up the running lines to either Up or Down connected to T1. :-)"

 

PhilM"

 

(somehow cutting down this quote made posting underneath as usual impossible)

 

Phil,  maybe I have misunderstood something or missed something in other posts.  I am in a similar position but I have 4 fixed roads not a traverser (beyond my skill set).  What I do is use Peco LocoLifts - they are 29.5  cm long and sit ON the track.  I have cut approx 4mm thick and 40mm wide strip wood to replace the silly floppy sides supplied by Peco, it's a force fit in and this makes a good solid construction.  In my usage loco runs on to the lift at the left hand (in your case) end of the siding, it is uncoupled and the whole lift moved either off the fiddle yard or to the head (the right hand in your case) of this or another train (turning if required).  In this way the loco does not need to move, the fiddle yard operator moves it to where it is needed.  The stock can easily run through the loco lift when it is at the head of a train, it just pushes down on the rails, and then it can be moved to the far end of the next appropriate incoming line.  You need a few loco lifts of course.  You can have a whole set of them arranged on a single siding if you are using DCC, just lifting them around as needed.  In this way I manage to run quite an intensive service.  This also means you can use your goods warehouse as a source and destination for goods to break up and make up trains - the stock is propelled in and disappears onto a traverser road to be brought out again later.

Edited September 19, 2017 by imt

[Harlequin]

 

Phil,  maybe I have misunderstood something or missed something in other posts.  I am in a similar position but I have 4 fixed roads not a traverser (beyond my skill set).  What I do is use Peco LocoLifts - they are 29.5  cm long and sit ON the track.  I have cut approx 4mm thick and 40mm wide strip wood to replace the silly floppy sides supplied by Peco, it's a force fit in and this makes a good solid construction.  In my usage loco runs on to the lift at the left hand (in your case) end of the siding, it is uncoupled and the whole lift moved either off the fiddle yard or to the head (the right hand in your case) of this or another train (turning if required).  In this way the loco does not need to move, the fiddle yard operator moves it to where it is needed.  The stock can easily run through the loco lift when it is at the head of a train, it just pushes down on the rails, and then it can be moved to the far end of the next appropriate incoming line.  You need a few loco lifts of course.  You can have a whole set of them arranged on a single siding if you are using DCC, just lifting them around as needed.  In this way I manage to run quite an intensive service.  This also means you can use your goods warehouse as a source and destination for goods to break up and make up trains - the stock is propelled in and disappears onto a traverser road to be brought out again later.

 

Yes, your method is very similar - a cassette is pretty much the same thing as a loco lift and loco lifts could be used instead of my suggested cassettes.

 

I haven't had any personal experience of loco lifts but I was a bit suspicious of their quality and reliability and I wanted to not be moving expensive locos around too much or too far. There's also a space problem in this design because the intended trains fill the length of the traverser roads. So I suggested "plug-in" cassettes for accurate track alignment and the hidden spur gives a bit more room for the loco to be marshalled "under it's own steam" rather than by fingers. But anyone can pick and choose the methods that work best for them.

 

And yes, the connection through the warehouse can be used to marshal goods trains out of sight, on the traverser. I think David (Pacific231G) probably always had that in mind.

 

PhilM

Edited September 19, 2017 by Harlequin

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Phil

 

Loco lifts are fine. I was finding getting locos off the end of trains at the far end of the traverser was awkward, that is when I experimented with them.  As none of my locos are Pacifics I shortened mine and they still work fine.

[Pacific231G]

 

And yes, the connection through the warehouse can be used to marshal goods trains out of sight, on the traverser. I think David (Pacific231G) probably always had that in mind.

 

PhilM

I hadn't really thought it through that far but yes it could. I'm a bit dubious though about leaving open voids at the ends of tracks. My idea was that the kickback into the goods yard would look visually like one end of a longer goods yard running in front of the main line with the modelled end of the goods shed acting as a view blocker for the main line exit. Operationally though it remains a short two road yard. . If you weren't using a traverser (or even if you were I suppose) you could use the front of the fiddle yard to re-arrange wagons. I've operated a few layouts whose off stage has effectively been a fiddle table on which cassettes can be shuffled and I've seen others that combine conventional sidings with cassettes. One good thing about using Kadees is that vehicles can be lifted out of trains very easily. 

[imt]

I haven't had any personal experience of loco lifts but I was a bit suspicious of their quality and reliability and I wanted to not be moving expensive locos around too much or too far. ...

 

PhilM

 

A couple of photos attached to show how robust they are done "my" way (this is somebody else's idea of course - but I cannot remember whose or where I saw it).  This arrangement is foolproof and means no touching of locos after they are loaded up.  I have a lot of these things and load my locos with a duty number attached so I know what goes where for my WTT.

 

I have a convention that everything drives in forwards an out in reverse - since everything is late 60's Scottish diesels - hence the arrow showing "forward".

Edited September 19, 2017 by imt

[imt]

Hi Phil

 

Loco lifts are fine. I was finding getting locos off the end of trains at the far end of the traverser was awkward, that is when I experimented with them.  As none of my locos are Pacifics I shortened mine and they still work fine.

 

I had thought of having some shorter ones - do you cut in the middle?  I find the "railer" ends very useful to get locos properly loaded (push on) from the storage roads.

 

As an aside I loved Sheffield Exchange and I'm dead jealous!  Hope you get things back together again soon.  I have seen your big new one in your thread.  I must say I prefer smaller - but I expect that's 'cos I don't have room.

[DCB]

I know I said "one last improvement" before but here are some refinements that would make my previous design work better:

 

Pacific Terminus 6g.png

 

I wonder if the facing crossover between platform 1 and 2 would be more prototypical as a trailing crossover.

 

In steam days apart from some city termini most trains at multi platform termini would be moved from an arrival platform to a departure platform if not taken to carriage sidings between trips, this would be much easier using the outbound line as far as the advanced starter as a shunting neck than the inbound line so keeping T1 for this would counteract its inability to align with the hidden spur.  Locos will also depart for the Traverser Tender first to reappear Tender first on the inbound track after turning and ready for their next duty.

ECS backing in on the outbound line as a train arrived on the inbound would look good, I do this just for the visuals of one train overtaking the other on a terminus I sometimes operate.  Probably best to avoid Pacifics on this size of layouts but Black 5s Std 4s 8fs and Jubilees ran down the Central Wales line into the similarly sized Swansea Victoria...

 

[Harlequin]

I wonder if the facing crossover between platform 1 and 2 would be more prototypical as a trailing crossover.

 

In steam days apart from some city termini most trains at multi platform termini would be moved from an arrival platform to a departure platform if not taken to carriage sidings between trips, this would be much easier using the outbound line as far as the advanced starter as a shunting neck than the inbound line so keeping T1 for this would counteract its inability to align with the hidden spur.  Locos will also depart for the Traverser Tender first to reappear Tender first on the inbound track after turning and ready for their next duty.

ECS backing in on the outbound line as a train arrived on the inbound would look good, I do this just for the visuals of one train overtaking the other on a terminus I sometimes operate.  Probably best to avoid Pacifics on this size of layouts but Black 5s Std 4s 8fs and Jubilees ran down the Central Wales line into the similarly sized Swansea Victoria...

 

Ah yes, great ideas. Thanks.

 

Running big Pacific locos is a bit of a squeeze but that is one of the requirements of David (Pacific231G). He has a bit more room because I think he's modelling in HO scale but even then the crossover between the platforms might not be usable by his intended trains of Pacific plus 5 vehicles.

 

PhilM

Edited September 20, 2017 by Harlequin

[kevinlms]

I wonder if the facing crossover between platform 1 and 2 would be more prototypical as a trailing crossover.

 

In steam days apart from some city termini most trains at multi platform termini would be moved from an arrival platform to a departure platform if not taken to carriage sidings between trips, this would be much easier using the outbound line as far as the advanced starter as a shunting neck than the inbound line so keeping T1 for this would counteract its inability to align with the hidden spur.  Locos will also depart for the Traverser Tender first to reappear Tender first on the inbound track after turning and ready for their next duty.

ECS backing in on the outbound line as a train arrived on the inbound would look good, I do this just for the visuals of one train overtaking the other on a terminus I sometimes operate.  Probably best to avoid Pacifics on this size of layouts but Black 5s Std 4s 8fs and Jubilees ran down the Central Wales line into the similarly sized Swansea Victoria...

I've been thinking about the crossover. Maybe it is the correct way. If the station working was such that only one passenger train was in it most of the time and if the main station facilities were on platform 1, then it would be more convenient for the passengers, if trains used platform 1 predominately. The crossover would then be the most convenient for incoming trains to run around.

 

Also not convinced about most incoming trains would be sent off to storage sidings elsewhere, surely it would depend on the anticipated workings.

 

Pacific231G sounds like its for a continental railway, but if its French, they run (mostly) on the left, but something worth considering for non British layouts.

Edited September 20, 2017 by kevinlms