Theory of General Minories

[Russ (mines a pint)]

 If you arrange the crossovers the right way round though a the third platform doesn't requre any more length in the throat

- true what I'm looking for is minimal depth length wont be as huge a problem if I go with the (house) location I'm thinking of ...  - ie back to front on a shelf so I believe a two face island platform is going to be the best & believable, esp if as in 'Newcastle Haymarket' it is on an elevated viaduct it gives a good reason for keeping things as tight as possible?

[Satan's Goldfish]

Your memory is quite correct. That is still the arrangement at Windsor Riverside though I think it used to have a third platform face. if you don't use a scissors a pair of crossovers is the minimum length that allows you to handle departures and arrivals from a double track line on more than one platform. If you arrange the crossovers the right way round though a the third platform doesn't requre any more length in the throat. That's what CJF did with the original Minories but with the two crossovers arranged in a particularly clever way. 

 

 

- true what I'm looking for is minimal depth length wont be as huge a problem if I go with the (house) location I'm thinking of ...  - ie back to front on a shelf so I believe a two face island platform is going to be the best & believable, esp if as in 'Newcastle Haymarket' it is on an elevated viaduct it gives a good reason for keeping things as tight as possible?

 

Suddenly came to me after posting earlier, what you want is Cromer. There's an O gauge model knocking around the forum somewhere. Similar track layout but with an island platform, backing onto a wall of a supermarket as a convenient close background and then into a cutting but if you're on a shelf then there's no need to worry about the front edge of that. It's 2 single track branch lines coming in side by side rather than a 2 track mainline but the illusion is the same plus it allows an excuse for 'wrong line running' depending on your fiddle yard situation.

 

Pictures below cover it all, compress a bit to fit it in less space.

 

Pic 1: Station

 

Pic 2: Crossovers (look carefully and you can see them both close to each other)

Pic 3: A convenient scenic break a little further from the crossovers

 

Definitely Gen 1 DMU friendly, I can remember catching them a lot along that line when I was young.

 

HTH

 

[Russ (mines a pint)]

Suddenly came to me after posting earlier, what you want is Cromer. There's an O gauge model knocking around the forum somewhere. Similar track layout but with an island platform, backing onto a wall of a supermarket as a convenient close background and then into a cutting but if you're on a shelf then there's no need to worry about the front edge of that. It's 2 single track branch lines coming in side by side rather than a 2 track mainline but the illusion is the same plus it allows an excuse for 'wrong line running' depending on your fiddle yard situation.

 

Pictures below cover it all, compress a bit to fit it in less space.

 

Pic 1: Station

Cromer 1.jpg

 

Pic 2: Crossovers (look carefully and you can see them both close to each other)

Cromer 2.jpg

Pic 3: A convenient scenic break a little further from the crossovers

Cromer 3.jpg

 

Definitely Gen 1 DMU friendly, I can remember catching them a lot along that line when I was young.

 

HTH

 

H'mm interesting - its not somewhere I think I've ever been (but have been to nearby Sheringham - ultimate S-L-T for the BR station ) - & unlikely to get again as moved significantly more northerly & not far off as west as you can get without getting wet feet lol!

 

- the arial view looks a bit like how the now much rationalised Mallaig looks- but without runround (def not first gen.DMU friendly lol)

 

The unit I have already is a cravens in green - I think they were quite commonplace in Norfolk so will think on it a bit more?

- the supermarket would not have been there of course but can always think of something else.  Trouble is the supermarket was prob built on the site of a huge-mongous goods yard!!! 

Edited October 17, 2013 by Russ (mines a pint)

[Satan's Goldfish]

Glad it's proved useful, stock running through it is occasionally a little more interesting now the NNR has been joined to the end of Sheringham's single track station....

 

 

- the supermarket would not have been there of course but can always think of something else.  Trouble is the supermarket was prob built on the site of a huge-mongous goods yard!!! 

 

That's a valid point, and the style is of a fairly modern building.

 

Some more info for you here anyway which confirms that:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_stations_in_Cromer

 

Edit: here it is! http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/74024-cromer-modern-image-o-gauge/

Edited October 17, 2013 by Satan's Goldfish

[bigdaveadams1]

Does anyone know which Working Timetable I'd need to get for the Moorgate Suburban services before they went over to solid DMUs?

[Velopeur]

Could any DMU really be described as solid?

 

Seriously, the last loco-hauled stock was withdrawn in 1976

Edited November 8, 2013 by Velopeur

[Satan's Goldfish]

Through a variety of different coincidences recently, another Minories inspired Track Plan has vomited itself out of my head that someone may find useful.

 

 

 

One of the catalysts was 'Crompton nut' posting a picture of a scissor crossing made up of 2 curved turnouts and a single slip in one of the Modular threads. Below is three plans that have come forth from that. all are aimed to be within a '4 point length' for the approach track work. I'd normall be doing these properly in xtrack cad but time is against me so i'm quickly turning this out in my lunch hour. Platform '1' will be the bottom platform in each of the diagrams and the top platform is envisaged beside a parcels office. Normal urban grot and run-down services apply!

 

 

 

Starting with 'A', we have 3 platforms, a centre road, and a loco stabling siding. I've included a run around which isn't usual for minories plans, however the turnout to access platform 3 is 1 back from the end position which frees up a little length on the platform face. The orientation of the 'scissor' crossing is such that arriving trains are faced with a point rather than the single slip. The space between the 2 'scissor' turnouts holds another turnout accessing the loco stabling siding (labled x) which has easy acces to platforms 1 and 2 as these don't have a run around facility. the centre road also allows the option of trip work freight to be reversed into a siding further along the line. The end of the centre road makes useful additional loco stabling space.

 

 

 

Plan 'B' expands it to include another 2 platforms but still with a 4 point length approach. Platform 3 has gained a run-around option too with platforms 1 and 2 still having direct access to loco siding 'x'. Depending on turnouts used this plan would require about an extra 1ft in length over plan 'A' unless the run-arounds are dispenced with and the orientation of siding x was reversed to make access easier to all platforms (similar orientation to the original minories plan).

 

 

 

Plan 'C' concept is more complex. The whole inspiration thinking here is London location, OHL equipt mainline through platforms are in tunnels underneath the station, further a long to the right both the terminus and through lines join at a more major junction station, yard, tmd, etc. The terminus fell into decline as most services used platforms 6 and 7 in the tunnels at this location apart from mail services and trip freight reversing above. The Underground have taken over the line to the terminus but BR still have access for parcels and trip freight. Underground use platforms 1, 2, and 3 and don't require a release crossover or loco stabling siding so they have been removed. The crossover between 2 and 3 has been moved to the platform throat to allow more combined arrival/departure movements in peak period. Parcels and freight use platforms 4 and 5 and the centre road. The ladder for these now consists of a double and single slip, the double provides access to loco stabling (x) so that loco movements don’t interfere with the commuting lines, and the single slip from the centre road backs into a potential small industry for the trip freight (Z). The throat in this format is 5 point lengths long, however if the train length was limited to 4 car EFE Underground units and loco + 3 carriages for parcels then 4ft platforms would be sufficient. By removing the centre road and single slip access to the freight siding a point length can be saved in the parcels platforms too. I’ve used LT 4 rail for the example there, but Southern 3^rd rail commuting would probably be just as effective.

 

 

 

 

[trisonic]

Of course all the designs can be expansible at either or both ends (longer platforms/longer mainline). Nice!

 

Best, Pete.

[jon_1066]

I thought one of the points of Minories was it didn't have reverse curves through the points.  You have one to access the bottom road on all three plans.

Edited August 26, 2014 by jon_1066

[Satan's Goldfish]

Sorry, that's just my bad ms paint skills. If I ever get time with xtrackcad again and I remember then I can properly adjust them to be a big smooth S bend for all tracks, it was just more than might paint skills stretch too! I'd like to build an 8x4 (ish) 2 track mainline test track, 1 of these might make a nice end to end upper level if I can squeeze it in.

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Mr Goldfish

 

I will be using a similar idea for my soon to be started layout, see http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/87205-sheffield-exchange/?p=1565533

 

As a teaser here is the simple track plan.

 

[t-b-g]

I thought one of the points of Minories was it didn't have reverse curves through the points.  You have one to access the bottom road on all three plans.

 

The original Minories had some rather improbable reverse curves created by using the then new Peco Y points to create a crossover. The main lines arrived on scene and did a quick S bend, which to me was the only part of the plan I didn't like as it just doesn't seem to be what the real railways would have done. The curved point/slip arrangement is actually better than the Y point crossover for reverse curves and is a design used by Peter Denny on Buckingham, allowing access to and from either main line to the platforms with a more or less continuous curve, reducing buffer locking when propelling stock into the platforms or to the carriage sidings.

 

Tony

Edited August 26, 2014 by t-b-g

[DCB]

The Minories in my old Peco 60 plans for small layouts has the Peco 2ft radius points arranged with one left hand and one right hand point making the crossovers, and in my opinion the design has never been bettered for getting access to any of three platforms from either of two main lines in the shortest distance possible

 

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.

 

The idea of separate suburban platforms is more a major terminus thing, Kings Cross, Glasgow Central, even Marylebone didn't have any.

 

I think what I am saying is design a track plan to suit how you want to operate.  Loaded passenger trains are not allowed to reverse but ECS can, pilot engines pull out ECS to release the train engine, but rarely to pilots pull ECS into platforms for departures, unless they bank the train out that is, Paddington being the main exception, but usually the pilot will propel ECS into a departure platform which will almost certainly mean propelling around reverse curves, so no set track or 2ft radius if you want reliable running. 

 

Of course there were termini which handled through trains, Bath Green Park being a classic example where one main line engine would bring a train in and another immediately couple on and take it back the way it came, at least the same way as far as Bath Junction where Birmingham/Bristol and the S and D lines diverged.

 

But plan for the operations you plan to do, I designed a layout for operation 25 years ago and it is still fun to operate, even some of the awkward moves were designed in, no facing crossover from branch to yard so the trains have to set back on the main line, so much more interesting than simply crossing straight over on some hugely complicated ladder.

 

Another Minories quirk is when designed modellers usually had far fewer locos, and less stock, so with a fiddle yard it could operate with 5 or 6 tank engines, and 4 rakes of passenger stock.  For us modellers of the 1950s generation with far more stock and locos it can only take a fraction of our collection, but converselywe are now back to impoverishment with carriage prices through the roof and a decent express rake plus loco now pushing £ 700 in OO scale perhaps Minories is bang up to date again.

Edited August 27, 2014 by DavidCBroad

[t-b-g]

That sums up the joys of model railway operation very nicely!

 

There are some very well known and impressive looking layouts around that would bore me silly in 10 minutes if I was operating them.

 

On some of them 95% of the trains do nothing other than run through. For some people, that is all they want from a model railway. Seeing the trains running is what it is all about and I would never have a dig at anybody for enjoying such things.

 

But for me, a good terminus (first of all, everything has to stop and do something!) is the best to operate, closely followed by a nice junction station.

 

My own Minories inspired layout is scenically unfinished but is fully operational and there are several different ways that incoming trains are dealt with. If it is an express, the pilot can remove the stock to the "off scene" carriage sidings (fiddle yard) or can shunt the stock to another platform to release the train loco (again, that goes to the "off scene" shed for turning and servicing). For local services we can shunt the stock to another platform and the train loco can go back on the front to take it out again or a different loco can be put on the front.

 

I also have a dock for fish/parcels/van traffic, which can come in either as tail loads or as a complete train.

 

Although the fiddle yard only has 5 sidings and we have only 5 trains (plus a few extra tail load vehicles and spare locos), I can operate for hours without repeating moves or getting fed up.

 

Buckingham is a more complex station but there are only 6 fiddle yard sidings. That is the best layout to operate that I have ever been anywhere near.

 

Such operation is the complete opposite of the big "roundy roundy" with a huge fiddle yard full of trains that follow each other round the circuit. That may be a crowd pleaser at shows but having run such layouts I prefer the challenge and use of brain power of a good terminus layout massively more satisfying as an operator.

 

Tony

[CloggyDog]

Does anyone know which Working Timetable I'd need to get for the Moorgate Suburban services before they went over to solid DMUs?

 

Moorgate never went 'solid DMU', there was a mix of loco-hauled and DMU services through to when the station was rebuilt for electrification.

 

The last WTT with the full suburban service would have been the Summer 1976 ER (GN) WTT.

 

I strongly suggest you join the BR Coaching Stock group on yahoo - the files section contains a wealth of info on the GN Suburban services and stock and the associated dropbox has a copy of the Carriage Working Book for the 1976 GN Suburban timetable.

[Pacific231G]

I thought one of the points of Minories was it didn't have reverse curves through the points.  You have one to access the bottom road on all three plans.

No. If you look at the plan, Minories has a reverse curve on all six routes but all but one of them are separated  by at least a points length and there is never a double reverse. Only the route from up main to platform 1 includes an unseparated reverse curve. 

If you compare that with the same operational plan built from conventional crossovers, two routes are straght (platform  1 to down main and up main to platform 2)  two routes have an unseparated reverse curve ( up main to platform 1 and platform 2 to down main)  and one route (platform 3 to down main) involves two reverse curves one of which is unseparated.

 

 

A conventional crossover on a straight section of double track will always involve at least one unseparated reverse curve. Unless you use sufficiently long points, that will always give excessive displacement between all but the shortest coaches. At worst that will produce buffer locking; at best it will simply look wrong on corridor stock as the gangways get so far out of aligment that anyone walking between coaches would be thrown onto the track.

The real genius of Cyril Freezer's plan was to avoid this problem for all but one route by making the entire throat a reverse curve; but the only way to entirely avoid reverse curves at a multi-platform terminus is to use a curved or angled approach. 

To my mind this looks very natural and should avoid the problem of buffer locking.  I know at least one real terminus that took full advantage of this to cram a lot of throat pointwork into a severely limited space. 

.

Edited August 30, 2014 by Pacific231G

[Karhedron]

You are absolutely right about eliminating the reverse curves by incorporating them into the natural curve of the station throat. A perfect example of this at a mid-sized terminus is Penzance (4 platforms rather than 3 but still a good compact prototype).

 

 

Going back a few years it had rather a nice set of slips making it very compact and interesting too.

[Pacific231G]

You are absolutely right about eliminating the reverse curves by incorporating them into the natural curve of the station throat. A perfect example of this at a mid-sized terminus is Penzance (4 platforms rather than 3 but still a good compact prototype).

 

 

Thanks for that. Penzance is a good example. The catch with most prototype termini is that even in a city where land was expensive they still had plenty of length so could use far gentler crossovers than we usually have room for.

My favourite prototype example where this wasn't possible was the sadly long demolished Paris Bastille. Here the designers managed to cram a five platform throat for the inner terminus of an intensively worked suburban line, somewhat like Fenchurch Street, into eight points lengths before a long viaduct reduced the line to two tracks. Because the viaduct was at an angle from the actual station they were able to design it without a single reverse curve (The track at the top leads to a small MPD and the loco release road for platform 1). That enabled them to use very sharp points usually reserved for goods yards even with full length bogie coaches and that allowed the rather complex pointwork required for simultaneous arrivals and departures on any two platforms to be crammed into a very short space. It's an object lesson in efficient track design and apart from the one single slip was made up entirely from the two smallest standard left and right hand points.

 

If you look at the plan you think there are reverse curves but there are none. It was not apparently the smoothest ride for passengers with a lot of lurching as trains passed from sharp curves to straights and back again but when was the comfort of commuters ever a priority? The limited revenue from season ticket holders was actually one reason why the CF de l'Est wasn't prepared to invest in an enlarged station when they needed to increase the frequency of rush hour trains. This incredibly efficient throat was the answer to achievening that without significant capital investment and trains could leave every two or three minutes from each platform in turn while the next batch were simultaneously brought in to refill the platforms. The whole rationalisation of throat, signalling and operating patten (trains were loco hauled and not yet push-pull) was the subject of various learned papers by the traffic engineers concerned which still make fascinating reading. 

Edited September 1, 2014 by Pacific231G

[Satan's Goldfish]

Interestingly (although I feel I may need to revisit the definition of that word) I did start redrawing my plans A B and C above so the approaches were all either on a single big sweeping curve or an S bend. the one that looks most visually appealing to me is plan A on a single approach curve. Simple but works.

[Clive Mortimore]

What I like to see at real terminus stations and model ones is the trains snaking their way in and out of the platforms. So reverse curves should stay.

[t-b-g]

What I like to see at real terminus stations and model ones is the trains snaking their way in and out of the platforms. So reverse curves should stay.

 

I agree 100% and I have done just that on Mansfield Market Place but I have used 1 in 7 points, which give a lovely snaking effect. The problem comes when you use Peco small radius points and the gentle snaking becomes a buffer locking lurch!

[Pete 75C]

Yup - Clive's comment gets my agreement too. I've long been fascinated by watching the "snaking" of an approaching or departing train but sadly, I've never been blessed with the space to model complicated throat pointwork using exclusively large radius points. And that, to me, is the genius of Minories... You get the "effect" without the consequence of your trains looking totally ridiculous...

[leopardml2341]

The 'snaking' effect is spoilt for me when you can see one rail appear 'outside' the coach(es) bodyline when viewed from above.

[Clive Mortimore]

HI Andy

 

Two cures for the above problem.

 

One use scale points, 1 in 10 I think is about the minimum you can have on a reverse crossover without slicing in half any passengers who are walking across the gangways between the coaches.

 

Two look from the side not the top.

[Pete 75C]

I think I only ever look down on a model railway while I'm building the damn thing. The "helicopter" view has never been a natural one, or indeed the best one.