Theory of General Minories

[Schooner]

15 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

this is getting complicated

Yeah, sorry that got a little out of hand - I was enjoying having a poke at the 'Minories' scheme for the first time in a while! - the main point of interest for me is alternative traffic movements through the Minories throat. It's such a well-known layout* and concept that I think sometimes we skip what a powerful little track plan it is, able to cope with almost anything bolted onto any available road.

 

*Whose genius lies in 1) the throat and 2) successfully lying to the viewer, or at least allowing them plausible deniability, about its physical dimensions. 

 

Brother @Compound2632 makes an interesting point, to which 

15 hours ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

in my mind the milk platform in my design could be replaced with a couple of spurs and basic coal/watering facilities.

is the perfect answer*...and, to my mind, the perfect Minories from a planning POV. Give it all-round access (a peninsula on a roundy...?**) and it'd be a very satisfying layout to own and operate.

 

*Scrap that, I really like @Flying Pig's suggestions!

 

**The corresponding junction/terminus being SP16 in 60 Plans perhaps...

[Compound2632]

15 hours ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

Ref the query on where to have a loco spur for quick turn arounds, in my mind the milk platform in my design could be replaced with a couple of spurs and basic coal/watering facilities. With enough board width in front of the fiddleyard there could even by a turn table, but it is supposed to be a cramped urban environment. Released engines can go straight back to there from any platforms.

 

Yes, as @Schooner says, that's it. Access to/from all three platform roads. It does mean the a light engine movement from any platform now stops up the arrivals line rather than the departure line but as there's no reversal involved, such moves should be quicker. With a couple of loco sidings, it's a nice forward position for displaying one's collection of passenger tank engines!

 

I'd perhaps keep the original loco spur as an end-loading dock.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Compound2632

[Flying Pig]

39 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Yes, as @Schooner says, that's it. Access to/from all three platform roads. It does mean the a light engine movement from any platform now stops up the arrivals line rather than the departure line but as there's no reversal involved, such moves should be quicker. With a couple of loco sidings, it's a nice forward position for displaying one's collection of passenger tank engines!

 

I'd perhaps keep the original loco spur as an end-loading dock.

 

I sort of agree but you do lose the milk tankers.  The original loco spur is probably ok for water and ash (more traffic!) which I think is all you would need (and any loco requiring additional servicing can go to shed as a light engine move which is still more fun, especially if you couple a caravan of locos together).

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

I sort of agree but you do lose the milk tankers.  

 

Ah but, you see, I'm thinking 19th century - certainly no later than the Great War.  

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Putting the goods at the back is a neater solution imo than CJF's, though you do lose the sweeping reverse curve through the main platforms and hence the opportunity to annoy some onlookers.  I like the way you have added goods and milk without facing points, but I think I would prefer to see the goods shed arranged as below to avoid having to use a short Y on the main line as that is rather a tight radius.

 

If you moved the bridge to the left of the goods warehouse, you could have road access at street level and it would imo divide the station scene better between station throat and buffer ends.

 

The one problem with this arrangement is that an arriving  goods working has to use one of the platform roads. That was the situation on the goods version of CJF's original Minories and may not be too much of a problem  if we assume that only two platforms (2&3?) are needed for passenger trains outside rush hours but I'm not sure how prototypical it would be. Arguably of course, Minories is an impression rather than a realistic model of an urban terminus so it's the sense of busyness that counts.

[Flying Pig]

21 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Ah but, you see, I'm thinking 19th century - certainly no later than the Great War.  

 

Then you lose the draughty vans, but it's still a diminishment of play value.

[Annie]

The track layout of my pre-grouping era Minories.

 

The left hand side platform is used for milk cans and parcels.

 

 

 

The end with the goods shed and the long dark and spooky tunnel.

 

The fiddle yard.  Platforms 1 & 2 can easily cope with ten 4 wheelers or five short MET bogie coaches.  I usually only run six 4 wheelers into platform 3.

[Satan's Goldfish]

6 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Putting the goods at the back is a neater solution imo than CJF's, though you do lose the sweeping reverse curve through the main platforms and hence the opportunity to annoy some onlookers.  I like the way you have added goods and milk without facing points, but I think I would prefer to see the goods shed arranged as below to avoid having to use a short Y on the main line as that is rather a tight radius.

 

If you moved the bridge to the left of the goods warehouse, you could have road access at street level and it would imo divide the station scene better between station throat and buffer ends.

 

 

Quite agree, that would be a useful arrangement for goods access, I was simply doing it the way I did to fit it in the 4 point length. As mentioned before, I originally tried it with a double slip to access the 2x goods tracks to provide a short headshunt for shunting and replace the trap points.

 

No reason why the sweeping reverse curve couldn't be there, I just drew it straight for ease. And I think I used a Hornby Y point rather than a Peco small Y in that plan is the radius is close to 900mm on those.

 

Ramp up to the street on the bridge sounds good, much neater than access at the other end as I drew it.

 

 

To satisfy both the milk and quick turn around loco options; maybe the kick back siding from platform 3 shown in some plans could be for a milk platform, just need to model the platform and pipes as the viewer would be stood in the building.

 

I might get the laptop out later to try a couple of other ideas.

[Pacific231G]

On 29/06/2023 at 12:09, Flying Pig said:

 

I sort of agree but you do lose the milk tankers.  The original loco spur is probably ok for water and ash (more traffic!) which I think is all you would need (and any loco requiring additional servicing can go to shed as a light engine move which is still more fun, especially if you couple a caravan of locos together).

Small historic aside, before widespread pasteurisation and TB testing in the 1950s, the introduction of milk tankers in the 1920s actually increased the prevelance of bovine TB in urban populations. This was because milk from an infected cow might in a tank load be mixed with milk from up to a thousand others and made the whole lot infectious. a churn would contain milk from far fewer cows so the odds of it including milk from an infected cow was far less.

Looking at terminus operations, dedicated loco spurs seem to have been associated with "turnover" operation of loco hauled suburban trains where an incoming tank loco took out a subsequent departure. That was of course the type of operation that (observed at Liverpool Street Met.) inspired Cyril Freezer's design for an intensely worked city terminus in the same sort of space as a branch line terminus but the ingenious arrangement of the entrance pointwork,  cutting out most immediate reverse curves, seems to have been an original flash of inspiration he had while doodling track a track plan so unrelated to the particular track arrangement there. 

There do appear at Ramsgate Beach (aka Harbour) terminus to have been loco facilities for water and possibly an ash pit (at least in its earlier years as seen in this image) at the start of the  long siding serving the goods shed. Extending the Minories loco spur for parcels or goods isn't incompatible with using it for turnover locos during the morning and evening peaks (which in the case of Ramsgate was presumably the arrival of a lot of trains carrying day trippers in the morning whose return home was more staggered- you can still see this pattern to some extent  at Tattenham Corner on Derby Day) .

[Lacathedrale]

Most people have seen the shots of Moorgate with the Type 2 locos, but here's a shot I found in Backtrack recently which shows an N2 and some suburbans, and the cute little loco headshunt:

 

 

Relevance to the thread? Moorgate is a continued inspiration on Minories layout scenics. I think the N2 is pulling out of the old SECR platforms? 

Edited July 6, 2023 by Lacathedrale

[Compound2632]

38 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

I think the N2 is pulling out of the old SECR platforms? 

 

The Widened Lines side of Moorgate was rebuilt at some point, since the Midland line diagram I posted above and the OS 25" maps in the NLS collection show each of the three platform lines with a platform face on both sides - for speed of emptying the trains no doubt, but I nightmare for the station staff in getting trains safely away, I should think!

 

Here: https://maps.nls.uk/view/101201565

Edited July 6, 2023 by Compound2632

[Flying Pig]

51 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

The Widened Lines side of Moorgate was rebuilt at some point,

 

Moorgate Widened Lines (1916) - 

 

https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php?id= 120

 

Moorgate 1933 (see Metropolitan Railway 1933), 1958 and 1965 (see Kings Cross to Aldgate 1958) -

 

https://www.harsig.org/Metropolitan.php

[Jeremy Cumberland]

21 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Most people have seen the shots of Moorgate with the Type 2 locos, but here's a shot I found in Backtrack recently which shows an N2 and some suburbans, and the cute little loco headshunt:

 

 

Relevance to the thread? Moorgate is a continued inspiration on Minories layout scenics. I think the N2 is pulling out of the old SECR platforms? 

Your view shows both loco spurs that then existed. The locomotive is passing over the points for that platform's loco spur. The line on the right is the kickback spur for the southernmost platform.

 

I'm not quite sure of the early history, but an 1885 plan on Wikipedia shows three terminating lines, with platform faces on both sides (matching the Signalbox.org diagram linked to above. so far as it goes):

[Link to full-size image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorgate_station#/media/File:Insurance_Plan_of_City_of_London_Vol._I;_sheet_23_(BL_150118).tiff]

 

The SECR stopped using Moorgate in 1916, and the Aldersgate chord was abandoned. By 1933, there were four terminating roads, two "Widened Lines" and two "Metropolitan", but the Metropolitan lines could be accessed from the Widened Lines eastbound (which was electrified), although trains could only depart via the Metropolitan/Circle line. The two remaining Widened Line roads still had platform faces on both sides, and quite likely they were still in their original positions. This is the same platform layout as in your picture (the Metropolitan terminating lines are in the middle under the bridge). However, by the time of your picture, the link between the Widened Lines and the Metropolitan platforms had been severed.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Jeremy Cumberland
Link to full size Moorgate image added

[Annie]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

I'm not quite sure of the early history, but an 1885 plan on Wikipedia shows three terminating lines, with platform faces on both sides (matching the Signalbox.org diagram linked to above. so far as it goes):

Wonderful, - I love old maps like that one.  At its full size it's huge map with a great many interesting details.

[roythebus1]

Another view of Minories Mk4 (I think). Lifted from FB group Metroplitan Railway Past and Present. Photographer unknown.

[Annie]

32 minutes ago, roythebus1 said:

Another view of Minories Mk4 (I think). Lifted from FB group Metropolitan Railway Past and Present. Photographer unknown.

Ooooo a MET 'sparker' - lovely.

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, Annie said:

Ooooo a MET 'sparker' - lovely.

Here's another, @Annie, and one more on the following page.

 

 

[Annie]

42 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Here's another, @Annie, and one more on the following page.

Ta very much.  Here's a MET 'sparker' on my earlier retro 'O' gauge version of Minories I built up using the Trainz Model Railway format.

 

 

 

 

 

[Schooner]

20 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

...with a platform face on both sides - for speed of emptying the trains...

 

I was wondering about this the other day, but failed to look hard enough for a good answer. Was this Everything Everywhere All at Once (IIUC?) approach standard practice? Platforms on both sides would also improve speed/ease of using separate arrival and depature platform (face) operation I think. Certainly would easier to station staff to mamage safely come rush hour! 

[Compound2632]

42 minutes ago, Schooner said:

I was wondering about this the other day, but failed to look hard enough for a good answer. Was this Everything Everywhere All at Once (IIUC?) approach standard practice? Platforms on both sides would also improve speed/ease of using separate arrival and depature platform (face) operation I think. Certainly would easier to station staff to mamage safely come rush hour! 

 

I don't think it would have been possible to control which side passengers got out - certainly not with "do not alight here" signs!

 

The up main at Ascot has a platform face on each side. As far as I can recall, in my slam-door 4-VEP commuting days, second half of the 1990s, both faces were used. I think this ceased with the advent of the sliding-door trains in 2000, it's certainly not the case now. The south face has been fenced off and of course the doors aren't released on that side. I suppose the logic there was that if you had arrived from the Camberley direction heading in the Reading direction, one could change trains simply by walking across the platform.

[Schooner]

If one could control which side passenger would embark from, they might leave those trying to alight little choice!

 

...although given commuter traffic is by definition unidirectional, a scenario where a train disgorges with vim through every available orifice and good luck to anyone going the other way must've been most common.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Schooner

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Schooner said:

disgorges with vim through every available orifice

 

No. No. No. I don't want to think about this phrase.

 

The exit passageways from Roman arenas and stadiums were called vomitoria...

[Schooner]

Happy Friday!

[Pacific231G]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I don't think it would have been possible to control which side passengers got out - certainly not with "do not alight here" signs!

 

The up main at Ascot has a platform face on each side. As far as I can recall, in my slam-door 4-VEP commuting days, second half of the 1990s, both faces were used. I think this ceased with the advent of the sliding-door trains in 2000, it's certainly not the case now. The south face has been fenced off and of course the doors aren't released on that side. I suppose the logic there was that if you had arrived from the Camberley direction heading in the Reading direction, one could change trains simply by walking across the platform.

The Greenford Branch bay (between the Central Line platforms) at Greenford has platform faces on both sides but only one is used. The trouble is there is no sign to indicate which side!  The middle platform line at White City on the Central Line also has the westbound and eastbound platforms on either side but that's because some trains coming from Central London terminate there.   If you're strap hanging on an eastbound (into London) train in the rush hour you can sometimes walk across the platform and get a seat in the almost empty waiting train.

Some French stations had/have a single line in front of the main station buildings with another platform on its other side apparently serving both it and the next line over. I think this was so that, if say the main platform served "up" trains , passengers (and perhaps more important baggage barrows) for "down" trains only had to cross one line to reach their platform. 

[Nick C]

3 hours ago, Schooner said:

If one could control which side passenger would embark from, they might leave those trying to alight little choice!

 

...although given commuter traffic is by definition unidirectional, a scenario where a train disgorges with vim through every available orifice and good luck to anyone going the other way must've been most common.

Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus in Mumbai has platforms on both sides of the suburban roads, with open doorways on the trains - there was a BBC documentary on it a few years ago. I seem to remember that the dwell time for incoming trains in the morning peak was in the region of 30 seconds - including crew change...