Theory of General Minories

[CaptainBiggles]

I wonder if the reason for this forum-based civility is is because Railway Modelling, by its nature, is a research-based hobby? Cycling, photography (et al.) are hobbies where we DO. Railway Modellers RECREATE (and share, and advise...)

[The Stationmaster]

14 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

There is the further point (so to speak) that the scissors or facing crossover innermost layout only requires facing point locks on three of the four points, whereas the facing crossover outermost needs them on all four.

And that is one very good reason why the 'trailing' (in normal terms) crossover is placed as it is in example A - it costs less to install and maintenance over its working life is cheaper.  Simple message there - if you're running a real railway don't introduce complexities you don't need.  And of course if we go back in time - not all that far back - it also achieves the useful advantage at the time of layout plan approval by HMRI of reducing the number of facing points = brownie points.

[Budgie]

15 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I was puzzling over that but I see you mean the whole sequence of arrival and departure. Calling the platform on the departure side 1 and that on the arrival side 2, then for the top version with the facing crossover innermost:

• arrival into 1 - 1 facing 
• departure from 1 - 1 facing
• arrival into 2 - 1 facing
• departure from 2 - 1 facing

while for the bottom version with the facing crossover outermost:

• arrival into 1 - 2 facing
• departure from 1 - 1 facing
• arrival into 2 - 1 facing
• departure from 2 - 2 facing

Therefore the top version, with facing crossover innermost, is to be preferred - and is the Minories topology.

Someone ought to tell Transport for London (or LUL) then, because Epping station is the bottom version.

 

 

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, Budgie said:

Someone ought to tell Transport for London (or LUL) then, because Epping station is the bottom version.

 

I dare say there's some specific reason for that. Is there a facing crossover out of shot? Or is it that all arrivals are at the down platform, with most departures from that platform too?

[Budgie]

28 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I dare say there's some specific reason for that. Is there a facing crossover out of shot? Or is it that all arrivals are at the down platform, with most departures from that platform too?

Yes, the facing crossover is out of shot with just a little bit showing in the bottom right-hand corner. Don't forget that that station runs 10 trains per hour, so it has to use both platforms 1 and 2 for arrivals.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Budgie said:

Yes, the facing crossover is out of shot with just a little bit showing in the bottom right-hand corner. Don't forget that that station runs 10 trains per hour, so it has to use both platforms 1 and 2 for arrivals.

 

Having looked at the 25 inch OS maps on the NLS site for the period when it was an ordinary country through station, I wonder if the position of the trailing crossover is a legacy of that layout - it being easier and cheaper to keep the existing crossover and add the facing one further out? I presume that it is standard LU practice to have FPLs on all running line points anyway?

[Nearholmer]

I don’t know about Epping, but at some tube stations/junctions the track configuration is optimised to speed-up “clearing down” after the passage of a train, ready to set up for the next move as soon as possible, because time to release FPLs, reset points, and re-lock can become significant a determinant throughput rates. Rapid operation is one of the reasons that air-operated point machines have lasted so long on parts of the underground.

[Regularity]

2 hours ago, CaptainBiggles said:

I wonder if the reason for this forum-based civility is is because Railway Modelling, by its nature, is a research-based hobby? Cycling, photography (et al.) are hobbies where we DO. Railway Modellers RECREATE (and share, and advise...)

Not sure: I have been told that military modelling forums can get really nasty, especially over (perceived) failure to do proper research.

[SZ]

36 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I don’t know about Epping, but at some tube stations/junctions the track configuration is optimised to speed-up “clearing down” after the passage of a train, ready to set up for the next move as soon as possible, because time to release FPLs, reset points, and re-lock can become significant a determinant throughput rates. Rapid operation is one of the reasons that air-operated point machines have lasted so long on parts of the underground.

Interesting, so there is a signal clearing implication.

 

Also, keeping it neutral on any am/pm tidal flow, isn't it optimal to prioritise arrivals from a single-directional 2 track approach into a 2 or more platform terminus? Up to a point at least, until all platforms are occupied, thus marginally favouring the facing then trailing arrangement on arrival?

 

Edited July 8, 2022 by SZ

[Regularity]

15 minutes ago, SZ said:

Up to a point at least

Facing, or trailing? ;)

[Regularity]

Another example with trailing then facing (as you approach) crossovers:

 

 

Edited July 8, 2022 by Regularity

[The Stationmaster]

13 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Another example with trailing then facing (as you approach) crossovers:

 

 

On that track layout the trailing crossover is to the right of the facing connection hence any departing train passes through a trailing point end last as it leaves.

[Pacific231G]

6 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

This was all explored in this thread about 40 pages ago. Risk of endless repetition alert...

Probably, but SZ asked a specific question  so it seemed only polite to try to answer his question  (or at least explore it) rather than suggesting he wades through over a hundred pages with many of the original diagrams now missing. 

6 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Not often that a double slip is an important part of a work of art.

 

https://www.railart.co.uk/print-shop/ramsgate-harbour-station

There were  two double slips at Ramsgate Beach/Harbour the other one for the up yard headshunt and the one in this painting is very clearly shown. Any idea when it was painted? 

 

I've just found an excellent new source on Ramsgate Beach/Harbour. 

This is a a series of mostly Aerofilms photos of Ramsgate Beach on the Britain from Above website. To see them in full detail you need to register but, if you're interested in such historical evidence, you'll certainly want to do so.  

As with other resorts, Ramsgate was very well photographed by Aerofilms and, though at first glance the images looked to be too wide to offer much information, the level of detail when I zoomed in on them was extraordinary. I supposed I shouldn't have been surprised as detailed aerial photography was developed to  very high degree during the First World War. They're also dated and there were images of the terminus (and its site) from 1920, 1923, 1927, and 1932. 

An image from the 1927 sortie shows the station in course of demolition and in 1932, apart from the tunnel mouth,  there's no  obvious trace of it left 

The 1920 sortie shows in a couple of images a crew working on the turntable but whether this was to enlarge it or simply maintenance isn't clear. It does make Regularity's point about how dependent the terminus would have been on the turntable being in operation.

From both the 1920 and 1923 sorties the track layout corresponds with the 1914 signalbox diagram  and the 1905  25 inch OS maps and. looking at the map more carefully, there does appear to be the start of a facing crossover on the up line just  before the tunnel mouth. It's staggered from the trailing crossover so not a scissors crossover but not a completely separate crossover either. That seems to also be reflected in the SBD. 

 

I was intrigued to see that the short down dock was definitely end loading only, bordered by a high concrete fence and the down bay, but was equipped with a loading gauge (though I can't see one in any images of the goods yard.) I assume that it  was used for loading and unloading private carriages (there was one at Windsor Riverside also) which needed to be checked for gauging. 

 

Despite its small size, the goods yard was clearly very busy with both open wagons and vans in evidence. There are though one or two photos that show carriages in the the number1 up siding and at least one that shows them in the no 2 (goods shed) siding so clearly things got quite frantic there on the busiest days. 

This rather sad image of the empty station, presumably soon after it closed in 1926, should also be useful for point rodding etc. 

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bjDh906tH40/WMrmPmzsPJI/AAAAAAACLio/9_MLFqFyBPs7eQxuiKQe5aUMSV1OrvssACLcB/s1600/2.jpg    

 

I can well understand why the SR wanted rid of such a cramped and awkward terminus but these are its very virtues for our purposes. It's still interesting to consider how it would have developed, even till the present day, had it been retained.   I'm sort of wondering if it was the inspiration for Bradfield Gloucester Square. 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2022 by Pacific231G

[The Stationmaster]

35 minutes ago, SZ said:

Interesting, so there is a signal clearing implication.

 

Also, keeping it neutral on any am/pm tidal flow, isn't it optimal to prioritise arrivals from a single-directional 2 track approach into a 2 or more platform terminus? Up to a point at least, until all platforms are occupied, thus marginally favouring the facing then trailing arrangement on arrival?

 

It depends very much on the theoretical headway and the timetabled headway plus the clearance times.  That could make a dfference on LUL style signalling with short signal sections and fixed train lengths plus electric traction.  But it also depends on platform reoccupation times.  If you can achieve a short reoccupation time (probably no more than twice headway but ideally equal to headway + reoccupation time) it could make sense.   But that is before considering other factors such a s track geometry enforced by site restraints.

[t-b-g]

I just looked back and this thread has now been going for 10 years.

 

With that length of time and the number of pages, I am not surprised if some folk don't read the whole thing before posting and therefore duplicate something that has been said before.

 

I can't remember what I posted 3 day ago, let alone 10 years.

[Flying Pig]

3 hours ago, CaptainBiggles said:

I wonder if the reason for this forum-based civility is is because Railway Modelling, by its nature, is a research-based hobby? Cycling, photography (et al.) are hobbies where we DO. Railway Modellers RECREATE (and share, and advise...)

 

More to do with the way RMweb is moderated.  Railway Modelling is quite capable of generating very heated arguments and I'm sure many of us could easily list several topics likely to do so.

[Clive Mortimore]

10 hours ago, Regularity said:

Not sure: I have been told that military modelling forums can get really nasty, especially over (perceived) failure to do proper research.

I use to belong to a wargames forum where we use to draw military units and if people wanted to they could print them off and have a battle. I cannot remember the reason behind this drawing but it was some competition, for fun. I got told it was historically inaccurate. 

 

 

That is me sat on the front of the Scorpion having a brew. 10 Field Workshops, REME, Tidworth 1976, the overhead crane in the A shop was having its routine maintenance being done so the recovery section loaned us their very old Scammell so we could carry on with a modification program we were doing to Scorpions and Scimitars. This geezer would not let go and called me all sorts of names and accused me of lying and not doing any research. 

 

Edited July 8, 2022 by Clive Mortimore

[Flying Pig]

 

2 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

That is me sat on the front of the Scorpion having a brew. 10 Field Workshops, REME, Tidworth 1976, the overhead crane in the A shop was having its routine maintenance being done so the recovery section loaded us their very old Scammell so we could carry on with a modification program we were doing to Scorpions and Scimitars. This geezer would not let go and called me all sorts of names and accused me of lying and not doing any research. 

 

Be fair, Clive, you were looking the other way and drinking tea at the time.

[t-b-g]

3 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I use to belong to a wargames forum where we use to draw military units and if people wanted to they could print them off and have a battle. I cannot remember the reason behind this drawing but it was some competition, for fun. I got told it was historically inaccurate. 

 

 

That is me sat on the front of the Scorpion having a brew. 10 Field Workshops, REME, Tidworth 1976, the overhead crane in the A shop was having its routine maintenance being done so the recovery section loaded us their very old Scammell so we could carry on with a modification program we were doing to Scorpions and Scimitars. This geezer would not let go and called me all sorts of names and accused me of lying and not doing any research. 

 

 

The drawing is obviously wrong. That bonding on the brickwork would never be like that and the bloke with short sleeves would surely have had some tattoos visible. They all have clean hands too.

 

Dreadful research.........  

[Pacific231G]

On 07/07/2022 at 13:02, Regularity said:

There was a model of the GNR Horncastle branch in the MRC in the early 50s. This was cited as being unusual in being a model of a real prototype terminus (as well as being pregrouping and a BLT), IIRC.

 

Not sure if there was much room on Maybank for scenery!

Apart from an embankment where the line to the MPD crossed the main line none at all, not even a station building (though the coaling stage and loco shed were nice models as was the civil engineering) . To that extent it was very much of its time (1933) but it was a breakthrough in terms of operation. 

 

I think Horncastle was unusual for MRC but real prototype BLTs, at least those based on real prototypes,  were appearing in RM by then along with other BLTs. Maurice Deane's Culm Valley is the obvious example but he later came up with (somewhat compressed) models of other real places including Wantage Town, Rye (Rye and Camber), and Jersey. CJF's Tregunna was based very closely on St. Ives and he was working on an EM gauge model of Ashburton when he moved with the magazine to Seaton. Asburton was also the basis for Peter Denny's Buckingham mk 2 , though he added a couple of extra tracks to make it more workable (Cyril freezer was always warning modellers off Ashburton because, despite its obvious charms, it had very limited operational potential.) 

I've just been going through a load of 1950s MRCs and MRNs stored in RUBs in my garage (looking for articles by John Ahern) and the thing that strikes me about them compared with RM  is that they're far more about building railway models than model railways.* RM was always far more layout based. 

 

*There were exceptions. One of my favourites was G.T. Porter's 8ft x 16inch "Potwell Mineral Railway" in the July and August 1952 MRN, effectively a model of the East Kent from Shepherdswell (Potwell) to Tilmanstone colliery (Sibertstone) though, because it was "based on" rather than a "scale model of" he gave it a freelance identity. It was worked with three clockwork tank locos (fixed at slow speed with only the reversing lever protruding) and operated by staff and ticket. It all fitted neatly into a cabinet. 

Edited July 8, 2022 by Pacific231G
correction of date

[TravisM]

With Accurascale now doing trip cock fitted Class 31's and the BR Mk1 Suburban's, time now to have another serious think about doing 'Minories', set in the mid 70's.  Without wading through all the replies on here, could you guys get me up to speed  as I want to use Peco Code 75 Bullhead rail because I think it looks 'right' for the time frame. Peco only seem to do only a left and right large radius point work, but I thought they had done a half slip, which I thought about using as it might save save a point or two, or should I just keep to the plan?

 

I also want to use Absolute Aspects superb MAS signalling but would it be double or triple aspect?  I assume by the signal box, there would be a stop signal, but would it have a platform number route indicator or the junction type with 'feathers'?

[Flying Pig]

15 minutes ago, jools1959 said:

With Accurascale now doing trip cock fitted Class 31's and the BR Mk1 Suburban's, time now to have another serious think about doing 'Minories', set in the mid 70's.  Without wading through all the replies on here, could you guys get me up to speed  as I want to use Peco Code 75 Bullhead rail because I think it looks 'right' for the time frame. Peco only seem to do only a left and right large radius point work, but I thought they had done a half slip, which I thought about using as it might save save a point or two, or should I just keep to the plan?

 

I also want to use Absolute Aspects superb MAS signalling but would it be double or triple aspect?  I assume by the signal box, there would be a stop signal, but would it have a platform number route indicator or the junction type with 'feathers'?

 

If you have the space, keep to the plan.  A single slip saves length but the radius of a Peco slip is significantly smaller then a large radius point, so the plan will not flow as well.  It also increases the number of back to back reverse curves in the throat, which CJF's original carefully minimises.

[Nearholmer]

Is what you say true of the latest bullhead single-slip?

[Lacathedrale]

19 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Is what you say true of the latest bullhead single-slip?

 

I don't know - I've got two of them and although I'm obviously an imbecile it seems to be the same curve geometry as the turnout?

[Harlequin]

37 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Is what you say true of the latest bullhead single-slip?

 

17 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

 

I don't know - I've got two of them and although I'm obviously an imbecile it seems to be the same curve geometry as the turnout?

 

The new Bullhead parts have the same geometry as the old flat-bottom-rail Streamline parts. That limits what they can do with the radius because it has to complete it's 12° turn between the two common crossings. So yes, the same very sudden, small radius deviation through the turning route(s) unfortunately.

 

But if you want smoother flowing Code 75 bullhead slips (and you've got the baseboard length to accommodate them) look no further than Finetrax.

 

Edited July 12, 2022 by Harlequin