Jump to content

Theory of General Minories


Mike W2
 Share

Recommended Posts

Bastille is as good an example of a Minories type terminus as any other (small, tight, fast turnaround) after all the OP for a track plan has been answered yonks ago.

 

Shenfield is a reasonable example of a through station (junction) yet heavy on the turnaround to London i.e. a lot of trains terminate there.

 

Best, Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bastille is as good an example of a Minories type terminus as any other (small, tight, fast turnaround) after all the OP for a track plan has been answered yonks ago.

Best, Pete.

 

Bastille might be relatively small as a prototype station, but "Minories" is a design for a model to fit a space in 4 mm scale of 80" x 8" + storage. Severe compromise is necessary for this; one accepts three-coach trains and tight clearances and curves to get an impression of the real thing,and CJF's plan is regarded as a masterpiece in the art of the possible. Skillful as it is, Gordon S's adaptation of Bastille needs 18'x11', without storage: not a small layout (certainly not on this side of the pond). The OP's original request for a track plan has been answered, yes, but I for one welcome posts on how "Minories" can be adapted without losing too much of the original idea.

Gordon.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of that in this thread - Minories has an elegant track arrangement in a small space, otherwise you are right it is unrealistic due to it's small size. Otherwise by keeping trains to scale lengths means most of the space would be made up of platforms - realistic but rather boring. The other problem with Minories and subsequent track "improvements" is that they don't seem to be freely available to show on here.

That is not a problem with real locations (that can also be adapted to models).

 

Best, Pete.

 

PS This is why I prefer to model freight lines.....

Edited by trisonic
Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of that in this thread - Minories has an elegant track arrangement in a small space, otherwise you are right it is unrealistic due to it's small size. The other problem with Minories and subsequent track "improvements" is that they don't seem to be freely available to show on here.

I think that the problem is that specific drawings are copyrighted (although the track plan is not). Putting up a scan from RM, or one of CJFs books would be breaking copyright. Someone drawing a copy of minories themselves and uploading it would be fine (I think). Sadly I am not much good at drawing (one of the reasons I like to build models).

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the real benefit of minories is that it can be extended - simply add some length (remembering to increase the fiddle yards too) if you have the space. I'm sure I've also seen a version with the approach on a curve for fitting in a garage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bastille might be relatively small as a prototype station, but "Minories" is a design for a model to fit a space in 4 mm scale of 80" x 8" + storage. Severe compromise is necessary for this; one accepts three-coach trains and tight clearances and curves to get an impression of the real thing,and CJF's plan is regarded as a masterpiece in the art of the possible. Skillful as it is, Gordon S's adaptation of Bastille needs 18'x11', without storage: not a small layout (certainly not on this side of the pond). The OP's original request for a track plan has been answered, yes, but I for one welcome posts on how "Minories" can be adapted without losing too much of the original idea.

Gordon.

 

Totally agree with you. Minories is in a class of it's own. Having seen the plan of Bastille that David put up, I wanted to see if it were possible to build it in model form as a stand alone project and certainly not to be considered against the masterpiece that Minories quite clearly is. Further extensions were then for my own curiousity to see if would answer some of my own challenges on ET. Since then I have tried to move away from Bastille and other developments and take the discussion back to the original request.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Bastille might be relatively small as a prototype station, but "Minories" is a design for a model to fit a space in 4 mm scale of 80" x 8" + storage. Severe compromise is necessary for this; one accepts three-coach trains and tight clearances and curves to get an impression of the real thing,and CJF's plan is regarded as a masterpiece in the art of the possible. Skillful as it is, Gordon S's adaptation of Bastille needs 18'x11', without storage: not a small layout (certainly not on this side of the pond). The OP's original request for a track plan has been answered, yes, but I for one welcome posts on how "Minories" can be adapted without losing too much of the original idea.

Gordon.

It depends what you want to adapt it to do. If you want a prototypical looking layout that works then simply use much larger radius pointwork and lengthen the platforms. If you want to add a greater parallel move capability it's fairly straightforward (Bastille shows one way of doing it, Windsor is another) but the throat will get longer in consequence and you will either have to lengthen the platforms for visual balance or put in an overbridge across the platforms to hide their short length. You can improve the flexibilty of the engine siding by using facing points and you could even add a second one.

 

But as a fully operable and relatively simple layout with one or two shortcomings on flexibility it can't be beaten because it is laid out correctly and it will work - so why should you want to do anything to it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mike,

 

This is a very interesting thread, for which I thank you. Of course it seems to have gone a long way from the Minories track plan that you required but a lot of interest and useful information being supplied.

 

I know that you originally asked for the Minories track plan but would something similar be of interest such as John Elliott’s/The Laird’s Bradfield Gloucester Square? It is only a couple of ft longer than what you have and such a design may be able to fit into your space if suitably trimmed. It also has a lot of operational interest with shunting of stock etc. If by chance you were interested in copying his design it could be an idea as well as polite to drop him a line and ask for permission although I doubt there would be a problem - Imitation being the highest form of flattery. FYI John has produced some interesting videos that you may like to see.

 

http://www.rmweb.co....re-br-1962-ish/

 

Regards

Ian

 

Hi Ian

 

I don't mind having trackplans for any layout of similar size and concept to give me ideas! That layout you provided the link for is stunning. Some of the photos make it look like you're looking at pictures of a real station. The only thing that gives it away is the model figures (not the modeller's fault!).

 

I'm still not sure whether it will stay a twin track or drop to a single track. i know someone local who's good at building small layouts, so I'll seek his help before finalising any plans.

 

thanks

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

..... "Minories" is a design for a model to fit a space in 4 mm scale of 80" x 8" + storage. Severe compromise is necessary for this; one accepts three-coach trains and tight clearances and curves to get an impression of the real thing,and CJF's plan is regarded as a masterpiece in the art of the possible.

Gordon.

I am not sure how long the platform faces on Minories are, but I have a loco and eight coach train that fit into a 38" space. I have always imagined Minories set in the Victorian period when locos and carriages were shorter, so that the overall length of the station would look proportionate. The need for compromise would then reduce.

Best wishes

Eric

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure how long the platform faces on Minories are, but I have a loco and eight coach trainthat fit into a 38" space. I have always imagined Minories set in the Victorian period when locos and carriages were shorter, so that the overall length of the station would look proportionate. The need for compromise would then reduce.

Best wishes

Eric

 

Touché, Eric! I should have said bogie coaches, of course.

Gordon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure how long the platform faces on Minories are, but I have a loco and eight coach trainthat fit into a 38" space. I have always imagined Minories set in the Victorian period when locos and carriages were shorter, so that the overall length of the station would look proportionate. The need for compromise would then reduce.

Best wishes

Eric

 

............ or the diesel era with 2 and 3 car DMUs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having exactly the same space for a layout as MikeW2, I also had thought about Minories; but what I want is more of a "posing plank", to show off my collection of rolling stock, so the train shed was out. I want to run goods trains as well as passenger, but CJF's goods yard add-on would make the board too wide. I'd been thinking about Bacup as a small town station, and though I finished up cutting it down to the absolute minimum, that's where the plan attached started.

 

post-7286-0-50774000-1346088125_thumb.jpg

 

As at Bacup, double track, an island platform, and a goods reception road to one side. The goods yard, loco facilities and carriage sidings off scene to the right, to Neverland (fiddle yard). I've lost Bacup's loco release roads, a station pilot removes passenger trains to Neverland or to the other road if clear; the goods yard shunter carries freight to and from the yard.

Turnouts are Peco large radius plus an asymmetric 3-way, points to be cut back to give correct track centres. The scenic section is 10½" wide and 8' long, with a 12" run-on at the start; I suppose I could lose the run-on to make it 7' overall, or to extend the tracks under an overbridge at the far end to cassettes so that locos could be released and run back along the goods road.

The baseboard frames would be supported by spurshelf brackets at 22" intervals. This would make it possible to use an idea shown in Iain Rice's "Design for Urban Layouts" where he proposes a model of an industrial railway in three stacked sections, the trains being carried from one level to another in cassettes. The goods wagons carried away from the reception road in my plan could be moved to a model yard below the station when I felt like doing a bit of shunting.

This one might get built, depending on what life throws at me next.

(Edited to correct mistake in drawing)

Edited by bluebottle
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

This is an excellent thread but maybe it should be retitled "Beyond Minories" :) given the variety of prototypes presented. Nice to see clecklewyke's reference to his Digital Crispin as I remember reading about it in MRJ and thinking it was an idea that deserved more attention.

 

I've lost Bacup's loco release roads, a station pilot removes passenger trains to Neverland or to the other road if clear

 

A slight reshuffle of the pointwork would give you a loco release and avoid the need for a pilot, which seems a little unlikely to me at so small a station. With no little trepidation, I present it as a signalling plan, but working it out in XtrkCad shows you should be able to run round four 57' carriages in the nearer platform. At busy times, the turnover engine method can be used, providing you can fit two engines and a train inside the starters, with the released engine running out onto the Up main to wait beyond the disc. If you can afford a little main line in view as per your original plan, it should be at least partly visible (perhaps an engine for the rear platform could be hand signalled to stand in front of the box for better posing? Depends on clearances between the two crossovers).

 

I've imagined that goods trains enter the goods loop at Neverland Junction and run round using the Up main, with the train standing between the yellow discs.

 

post-6813-0-99386500-1345883443.gif

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but would you want to lose the pilot? Surely that is half the fun, and who knows what lies beyond that bridge?

 

Newquay had three platforms and a double track approach, but was at the end of a single track line-two single track lines for much of its existence.

 

Holmfirth, on the other hand, was a single platform face at the end of a double track line.

 

Ed

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 22/08/2012 at 22:36, The Stationmaster said:

Incidentally SNCF are as beloved of such things as complex equations and charts as were their various predecessors - they can be quite interesting but are often far from practical when the chips are down. Their terminal occupation theoretical work and charts are in fact nowhere near as effective as a train graph combined with a bar chart for platforming - a quick and simple process.

The French certainly love their theory and their modelling magazines used to be full of articles about things like designing curves, gradients and even electro magnets accompanied by pages of detailed equations. They did though and AFAIK still do make far greater use of train graphs operationally than I think was the case in Britain where I thought they were mainly used for timetable planning. I've even seen train crews on preserved lines like the Baie de Somme, especially on busy gala days, carrying them as working timetables. They don't normally use staffs or tokens for single lines so the timetable is key.

 

The French certainly did also use platforming bar charts. This one beneath the train graph for Bastille in the evening rush hour after it had been rationalised was included in two papers by the Est's traffic manager. This shows what train number a set of coaches in each platform came in as and went out as and also shows from which incoming train locos on outgoing trains had come from (HP was light engine)

 

post-6882-0-32777100-1345893576_thumb.jpg

 

Though this looks hideously complicated the principle is fairly simple and I know of several modellers who've used this technique to plan layout operation particularly for fiddle yards. It looks like they didn't use a pilot at Bastille but presumably had at least one spare loco in steam during the rush hour.

Edited by Pacific231G
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about it, Newquay must have been about the biggest single line terminus unless anyone knows better?

Possibly. Windsor was bigger but I cannot remember if the branch was single or double-track back then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The French certainly did also use platforming bar charts. This one beneath the train graph for Bastille in the evening rush hour after it had been rationalised was included in two papers by the Est's traffic manager. This shows what train number a set of coaches in each platform came in as and went out as and also shows from which incoming train locos on outgoing trains had come from (HP was light engine)

This looks incredibly complicated - certainly far from a simple case of trains departing and returning on public services as I had naively expected. The number of empty stock movements is quite large. It would be very interesting to see what the full daily timetable looked like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Possibly. Windsor was bigger but I cannot remember if the branch was single or double-track back then.

Windsor was bigger (in terms of number of platforms) but it was originally double line. The number of platforms was not reduced when the line was first singled but in normal working only one was used and if it was necessary to use more the 'ground frame' (which had been the signalbox for a brief period before Slough panel took over) had to be manned and opened.

 

The only Western terminus which I can find at the end of a pre-rationalisation single line and more than two platforms is Porthcawl, which had 3 platforms. Several double track GW branches had termini with 3 platforms including those in which the approach block section was double even though much of the rest of the branch was single (e.g Newquay) and of these I think Aberystwyth was probably the largest with 4 platforms accessible to/from the Cambrian side although one of these was shared with the Carmarthen line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The French certainly love their theory and their modelling magazines used to be full of articles about things like designing curves, gradients and even electro magnets accompanied by pages of detailed equations. They did though and AFAIK still do make far greater use of train graphs operationally than I think was the case in Britain where I thought they were mainly used for timetable planning. I've even seen train crews on preserved lines like the Baie de Somme, especially on busy gala days, carrying them with as working timetables. They don't normally use staffs or tokens for single lines so the timetable is key.

 

The French certainly did also use platforming bar charts. This one beneath the train graph for Bastille in the evening rush hour after it had been rationalised was included in two papers by the Est's traffic manager. This shows what train number a set of coaches in each platform came in as and went out as and also shows from which incoming train locos on outgoing trains had come from (HP was light engine)

It is standard practice in France for crews to drive to a copy of the working timetable (along with the Livre Ligne which is their equivalent, and more, of Table A of a British Sectional Appendix. This is both an aid to timekeeping and Road Learning - an SNCF Driver can learn a long route (e.g Lille - Bourg Ste Maurice) in a handful of days and then drives with the book in front of him.

 

A number of European mainland Railways use timetable graphs for control of current operating on single lines - in fact I'm inclined to suspect that Britain is the only place in Western Europe where that doesn't happen :O but even for timetable planning train graph use in Britain was not always a practiced art (or science) while bar graphs for platforming seems to be a more recent idea in some planning offices although I know individuals were using them much earlier. Where bar graphs were used in Britain was for engine diagramming and Victorian examples exist but I suspect that fell out of favour as many diagrammers in the 1960s and '70s seemed to work without them, as did many folk who planned platforming at major termini although some planning computer systems now incorporate them if required.

 

. It's also an excellent way of managing live operations at a terminus provided you keep it up to date as you go. I'm not sure if SNCF Control Offices do it for termini but they monitor train running on live graphs (using computers nowadays in the modernised offices).

 

I don't know if SNCF have updated their computerised graphing system but some aspects of it were very cumbersome in the version they were using in the late 1990s although other things could be done far more easily than was possible with the then best BR software. BTW the most amusing train graphs in use in Europe are the ones the Germans use - the two axes are the opposite way round to the way everybody else does it although it does make them - I found - far easier to read upside down.

 

Though this looks hideously complicated the principle is fairly simple and I know of several modellers who've used this technique to plan layout operation particularly for fiddle yards. It looks like they didn't use a pilot at Bastille but presumably had at least one spare loco in steam during the rush hour.

Bar graphing off a TT graph is a remarkably simple process that can be learnt in about 5 minutes - the only trick is making sure you set it out properly to start with, the rest is easy provided you've got the timings and margins etc to work from. The layout at Bastille plus a quick glance at the graph show it was mainly worked using turnover engines (as was, for example, the case with some of the suburban working at Liverpool St) as this allows the slickest and quickest station working with non push-pull loco hauled trains.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks incredibly complicated - certainly far from a simple case of trains departing and returning on public services as I had naively expected. The number of empty stock movements is quite large. It would be very interesting to see what the full daily timetable looked like.

In 1930 It looked like this:-

post-6882-0-12596600-1345937638_thumb.jpg

post-6882-0-77267700-1345937585_thumb.jpg

 

This was past the line's absolute peak in the mid 1920s, after which it faced competition within Paris from new Metro and bus routes, but you can see that of the seventy daily departures from Bastille between 06.00 and 00.40 no less than thirty five of them were between 17.00 and 20.00 after which there was a forty minute gap. The morning peak was a bit less intense with thirty one trains arriving between 06.00 and 09.35 followed by a gap of an hour. Though it looks complicated it does follow a rhythmic pattern, especially of departures during the evening peak, with five trains departing in the space of about ten minutes followed by a ten minute gap and then another five trains. That cycle repeated seven times getting slightly less intense towards the end of the rush.

 

This public timetable obviously doesn't show the empty stock movements but there were a lot of them as only twelve service trains arrived in Bastille during the three hour evening peak. The difficulty of operating the station was that beyond the five platform roads there was no room at all for storing stock and the nearest carriage sidings were at Reuilly the next station at the other end of the long viaduct. Most trains only went part way down the line so during the peak would certainly have worked back to Bastille as empty stock probably more than once.

 

What does strike me about this pattern is that there is absolutely no room for error so what happened if there was a breakdown I've no idea.

 

Outside the rush hours, apart from an outbound flurry of five trains at midday there were only two or three trains an hour so balancing inbound and outbound service trains wouldn't have been a problem. One peculiarity of the line from Bastille was that it carried almost as many passengers on Sundays- mostly Parisians heading out of town for the day- as on working days with over sixty departures and about seventy arrivals but these were far more evenly spaced.

Edited by Pacific231G
  • Like 3
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...