Jump to content

Theory of General Minories


Mike W2
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

35 would be about right.

 

Departure - 5 platform starters, 1 main starter, 1 signal for the sding 1R, 1 limit of shunt for wrong road moves.

Arrival 5 main, 5 call on, and 1 for the siding

Total of 18 signals.

Say 17 points and locks - a guess, some locks would be combined and most points would be double ended.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

35 would be about right.

 

 

Say 17 points and locks - a guess, some locks would be combined and most points would be double ended.

 

Beast,

 

Can I ask a question please? what's a "double ended" point ?

 

Thanks,

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please remind me. Did they drive on the left as on BR at the Bastille? The signalling seems to imply this.

 

Yes Ian. apart from the Paris Metro and the part of Alsace-Lorraine that was German from 1871-1918, trains in France have always run on the left. Although some main lines are banaliseé - i.e. signalled for bi-directional working- the line from Bastille never was and with the lack of stock storage requiring almost every inbound working to be balanced by an outbound there wouldn't have been much point. The first part of the line from Bastille closed when the route was incorporated into the first RER line towards the end of 1969 and had always remained both steam hauled and mechanically signalled.

 

Unfortunately Bastille and its Ligne de Vincennes was a bit of a hidden gem that enthusiasts didn't really notice until a few years before it closed. By then- from about 1962-63 - it was being operated by push-pull sets cascaded from Gare de l'Est's electrification and was also rather less busy than it had been at its peak. As a result there are almost no records or photos of the incredible choreography required to turn trains around fast enough to meet the rush hour service though at times the traversers must have been going like shuttle cocks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The British obsession with avoiding facing points may make the Bastille layout look slightly wrong for this side of the channel?

 

A mirror image of the track layout gives less facing points in both directions, if my quick calculations are correct - largely due to the reversal of the first crossover at the entrance to the station throat, which all trains have to pass through.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

It's an amazingly elegant design isn't it. I dread though to think how many signals it would need to meet British practice- Bastille itself was controlled by a mere 33 levers in a small Saxby box perched on the side of the viaduct above the Rue de Lyon.

 

It makes an interesting comparison with the Windsor & Eton (GWR) link I posted earlier. This was only a 4 platform terminus and like Bastile was approached by a formation carried on arches and thus very restricted in width until - more or less - the station throat but it too offered very flexible simultaneous arrival and departure arrangements with - in its case such moves being capable from any pair of platforms across the entire layout. Partially because of the site constraint it did involve some slightly more complex pointwork than Bastille and engine release was by means of scissors crossovers plus it included access to the low level goods yard and it also required a 60 lever frame but it was capable of receiving and despatching trains right up to the headway capacity of the double track branch from Slough.

http://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwa/S108.htm

 

The only 5 platform GW terminus which offered a similar facility was Swansea High St and the 'box there had 120 levers and it used two approach lines to give the flexibility.

http://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwm/S1844.htm

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Knew I couldn't resist playing around with Bastille, with a few mods to bring it in line with an earlier ET plan as there are similarities. I've added a headshunt and the two bay roads and then reversed the image as picked up by Orion. I like the overall feel of the plan and it flows well.

 

I'd welcome any comments....This is purely a paper exercise at present, but it did get my creative juices flowing.

 

post-6950-0-96573400-1345139406_thumb.png

Edited by gordon s
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Knew I couldn't resist playing around with Bastille, with a few mods to bring it in line with an earlier ET plan as there are similarities. I've added a headshunt and the two bay roads and then reversed the image as picked up by Orion. I like the overall feel of the plan and it flows well.

 

I'd welcome any comments....This is purely a paper exercise at present, but it did get my creative juices flowing.

 

Is it a 6 platform station Gordon? If so and worked as a terminus it seems a bit short of parallel move opportunities to me as it divides into two main platform groups with one platform in one of them being shared with the other group. Thus the bottom 3 platforms (if I'm reading it right?) can only handle one move at a time in either direction, but can have a departure parallel with an arrival in the top group. the top group is slight;ly more flexible as one platform in the group can have a departure parallel to an arrival on either of the other two in that group (and any in the group can have an arrival parallel to a departure from the bottom group. (I'm taking the two outer lines in each case as engine release lines - maybe incorrectly).

 

Taking it as a through station things are slightly different because the parallels make more sense of course but the bay in the lower group can't receive an arrival paralle with a departure from the platform below it while you can't depart from the upper bay parallel with an incoming train on the road above it. Look at the way the central bay at Pontypool Road is connected in these (small scale alas) drawings http://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwt/S1253.htm It's like the arrangement you have for the line below the upper bay and thus permits parallel moves.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mike for taking the time to look at this plan. Much appreciated. All I did was to take the original Bastille plan and take a mirror image as suggested by Orion. They are all a terminus based design.

 

I then added the two bay platforms then were a feature of ET terminus plan I came up with a couple of years back. So here's a scan with the platforms added in a mirror image.

 

post-6950-0-86387700-1345144753_thumb.jpg

 

This is reversed but with the bay platforms and the last plan is Bastille with just a headshunt added.

 

post-6950-0-11927700-1345145604_thumb.png

 

I'm going to work through your comments, just to check if I have changed something by mistake. I'm guessing the original Bastille plan as posted by David worked well, so will go back to the first plan to check your comments. Knowing your background Mike, you comments are very well appreciated...

 

post-6950-0-54039800-1345145627_thumb.png

Edited by gordon s
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies Miss Prism and the OP, you're are correct. Perhaps I should start a separate thread as I'm finding this subject particularly interesting with regard to terminus design and arrival/departure traffic flow.

Edited by gordon s
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Thanks Mike for taking the time to look at this plan. Much appreciated. All I did was to take the original Bastille plan and take a mirror image as suggested by Orion. They are all a terminus based design.

 

I then added the two bay platforms then were a feature of ET terminus plan I came up with a couple of years back. So here's a scan with the platforms added in a mirror image.

 

This is reversed but with the bay platforms and the last plan is Bastille with just a headshunt added.

 

I'm going to work through your comments, just to check if I have changed something by mistake. I'm guessing the original Bastille plan as posted by David worked well, so will go back to the first plan to check your comments. Knowing your background Mike, you comments are very well appreciated...

 

What exactly would you like to achieve with the terminus track layout Gordon - do you wish to go for a maximum of parallel move opportunities (which might get complicated although Swansea and Windsor show two ways of doing it ) or do you wish to max out on the flowing curves you're using in these sketches? (or - I can see this coming - you're after a compromise between the two :scratchhead:

 

Then of course when you relate the terminus to the rest of your railway does it need maximum parallel opportunities or are just a few (as you've now got) as much as you need because the rest of the layout can't handle the intensity of movement that would allow? Interesting questions there I suspect and not trying to catch you out but to think about what you're looking for in teh terminus approach both operationally and appearance wise perhaps?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies Miss Prism and the OP, you're are correct. Perhaps I should start a separate thread as I'm finding this subject particularly interesting with regard to terminus design and arrival/departure traffic flow.

 

Actually, I'm liking the direction of the thread as well (my comment above was in the spirit of humorous commendation rather than criticism), and I think that both 'minor' and 'major' discussions can co-exist beneficially.

 

P.S. Newford was a terrific layout - but saw it only once (at Watford Finescale).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, I now realise my understanding of terminus design is about 11+ standard... :D

 

Truth is I saw the Bastille plan as something I'd like to map out in Templot to see if it were feasible, as it looked a particularly elegant design.

 

With regard to your questions and in modelling terms, I work on my own, so in reality could only have one loco in steam even in DCC, unless friends happened to drop by when multiple workings would be a challenge. I must admit I didn't question the Bastille design as in my simple world, it worked.

 

As you know, I'm a fan of ECML and trains of say 8-10 coaches behind a Gresley Pacific. They look a bit daft on 3' radius curves, so wherever possible I aim for the maximum radius, sweeping curves and minimum 3' radius turnouts although most of mine tend to be 6' plus in main line situations. I'm also limited to 18' in length including the approach curve, so once you get a platform length of say 8-9' and an approach of 4' radius plus, the options on station throat pointwork becomes very limited unless you drop to RTR radius turnouts.

 

I'm finding this whole subject quite absorbing and hope you are OK with me tapping your brains. Are there any mods that could be made to the Bastille plan or my variations that would improve the in/out flow?

 

I've just added a couple more crossovers to platforms 2 & 3 to improve in/out access, but feel free to make further suggestions.....

 

post-6950-0-77643000-1345149913_thumb.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

In case anyone is interested, there is an article by Peter Winding in the December 1966 Model Railway News which is entitled 'Nogent Engine Shed'. This was the shed that provided the locos for services out of Paris-Bastille. However, the article covers the services from Bastille with track plans of the terminus and also of the semi-roundhouse at Nogent as well as a map showing the location of the Bastille to Boissy line inrelation to others in the area. No photos of the terminus I'm afraid but there are five photographs taken in and around Nogent shed earlier in 1966. Mr.Winding does comment that it would be worth a visit as he comments that with the coming of RATP East-West line that the Vincennes to Bastille section would be abandoned. I kept a note of this article as I saw similarities with Minories and that it may be a useful prototype on which to base a layout at some point.

Could I also give a mention in the small urban terminus stakes to Cowes on the Isle of Wight. This is very much a 'modellers' terminus with three platform roads, a coal siding, a couple of other spare sidings, all converging into a single line and only using seven plain turnouts in the process. Oh and it has an overbridge just past the last turnout! Aside from all the other published works the Railway Modeller did a two page article with track plan and photographs in October 1960 and the Model Railway Constructor published a signalling plan in October 1977.

 

David

 

Edit: Apologies, the plan showed the last turnout before the bridge but photos show it as just after the bridge. For your model, move the bridge!

Edited by DavidLong
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

....and here is a link containing 2 videos - one even includes the operation inside the signal cabin.

 

http://www.paris-unp...are-lopera.html

Thanks for these. The first one is familiar as it was made by SNCF's Centre Cinematographique (sort of equivalent to British Transport Films) and is available as a DVD - though I'm sure the move on the traverser was staged as the push-pulls in use by then always had the loco at the country end of the train. The second one by Jean Pierre Dumont is new to me and very interesting.

 

I've got the Peter Winding MRN article and, though the track plan for Bastille is incomplete it is interesting. Nogent was the MPD with all the line's locos allocated to it, and with annexes at Bastille and elsewhere.

The slightly odd shape of Nogent's site was due to it being in the triangle that would have formed the start of a connection with the Gare de l'Est- Mulhouse main line. That would have made Bastille more of a main line station (which would proably have expanded beyond recognition) but never happened. The roundhouse at Nogent was the original one from La Villette the depot for the Gare de l'Est so its destruction soon after the line's conversion to RER was a sad loss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Mike, I now realise my understanding of terminus design is about 11+ standard... :D

 

Truth is I saw the Bastille plan as something I'd like to map out in Templot to see if it were feasible, as it looked a particularly elegant design.

 

With regard to your questions and in modelling terms, I work on my own, so in reality could only have one loco in steam even in DCC, unless friends happened to drop by when multiple workings would be a challenge. I must admit I didn't question the Bastille design as in my simple world, it worked.

 

As you know, I'm a fan of ECML and trains of say 8-10 coaches behind a Gresley Pacific. They look a bit daft on 3' radius curves, so wherever possible I aim for the maximum radius, sweeping curves and minimum 3' radius turnouts although most of mine tend to be 6' plus in main line situations. I'm also limited to 18' in length including the approach curve, so once you get a platform length of say 8-9' and an approach of 4' radius plus, the options on station throat pointwork becomes very limited unless you drop to RTR radius turnouts.

 

I'm finding this whole subject quite absorbing and hope you are OK with me tapping your brains. Are there any mods that could be made to the Bastille plan or my variations that would improve the in/out flow?

 

I've just added a couple more crossovers to platforms 2 & 3 to improve in/out access, but feel free to make further suggestions.....

 

post-6950-0-77643000-1345149913_thumb.png

 

The only one you're now missing is the opportunity to depart from the upper bay (No.6) while a train arrives in No.7 but I think you've taken it as far as you can tackling it in this way with 'plain' crossovers. The problem of using crossovers on their own is that they seriously extend the length hence in situations like this it was far more common to use slips which although they restricted speeds allowed the pointwork to be compressed into smaller areas. At Bastille there was - odd tho' it sounds for its situation - sufficient space for crossovers with a bit of flexibility sacrificed and the use of slips avoided and in all probabliity slightly higher speeds feasible.

 

Modern British layouts have undergone an interesting series of developments over the past 40 years with a move beginning in the late '60s of using as few diamonds and slips as possible except where unavoidable (which usually meant some London termini - but not all). This pattern continued until recent increases in train numbers in many provincial areas have resulted in more complex trackwork making a reappearance in some places.

 

Although not quite in the same area I had the task in the early '90s of planning a large bulk loading terminal which had to be capable of handling a stated maximum throughput and it had to go into a specific site (the third one to be decided on by the client as it happened - they kept changing their mind :O and spec and it all had to be progressed on a very confidential basis so very few of us involved). I had a good look at the site to check how much space was available, worked out with a colleague how long our maximum train length would have to be (to meet various tonnage delivery needs) and drew out a sketch plan of the layout I wanted. A PW design engineer then did a quick site survey and a proper scale drawing off my plan to see if it would fit where I though it would fit and it did - with about 12 feet to spare at the far end (where we were limited by a level crossing). It involved some very complex pointwork for the period with slips and diamond crossovers but I reckoned that was the only way it would fit - and it was. Must try and dig out some of my pics as they're quite interesting (well I think they are) albeit all taken at a fairly advanced state of construction. Alas it has never had to work to anything like full designed capacity but at least it's in use as are various other layout changes I planned as part of the scheme.

 

I also had an interesting variant on the 'try it on paper with strips of cardboard representing vehicles and locos etc' approach as I needed some real data for assessing another part of the scheme and proving that certain options wouldn't work. So I arranged to borrow a train and did some trial running - who says it was a dull life on BR?

 

Sorry to go O/T but there is a bit of relevance I think to layout planning.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
I also had an interesting variant on the 'try it on paper with strips of cardboard representing vehicles and locos etc' approach

 

Hi Mike,

 

Templot now includes an option to play about with dummy vehicles and roll them along the tracks. So Gordon can run his new layout without having to build it: smile.gif

 

2_031447_460000000.png

 

2_241739_190000002.png

 

Martin.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordon does not like making slips..................... :drag:

 

Best, Pete.

 

I don't mind building them if there is no alternative. It's ballasting the little b*ggers that finishes me off. There are just so many nooks and crannies and so many moving parts which don't go together with N gauge ballast and glue of any description, hence my aversion. I try wherever possible to avoid them....along with gradients and tight curves and days with a 'y' in their name.... ;)

 

Thanks again Mike. It really was a fun exercise that stretched my grey matter a bit....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing is "Bastille" is being written about on two different threads right now. The other is by L49 (of East End/NLR fame) who has just started a Parisian layout of the fifties....

Great minds think alike?

 

Best, Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...