Theory of General Minories

[Pacific231G]

 

Thanks for the clarification and correction. I only have the second edition of "small railways" and I had mis-read the scale bars!

 

I'm looking at ways of minimising the number of small radii, still using standard current Peco Streamline geometry, within the 3.5ft by 1ft space of one half-baseboard (and taking the hinge post into account). As a matter of practicality, do you think it's acceptable to locate a set of points right on the edge of a baseboard? That would give a bit more leeway but it doesn;t seem like a good idea to me.

 

PhilM

Hi Phil

 

I probably wouldn't set any pointwork closer than an inch or more from the board end but without using ANY small radius points you won't need to. With medium radius points, all the pointwork (apart from the points for the kickback siding) fits very comfortably onto a metre long board. I've got it laid out on one right now and the total length of the actual pointwork occupies 34 ¹/₂ inches which gives a tad more than two inches clear at each end. With 38 inches to play with, even with the hinge post,you should be fine. 

 

After a lot of playing around with it I have made one change to the original plan which is to substitute a medium radius Y (nominally 5ft radius) for the  first of the two back to back points. 

 

 

 I'm pleased with the result of this.  it does significantly reduces the end displacement between coaches in trains moving between the Up line and platform 1.  That is at the expense of an S curve  between platforms two and three and the down line but it's at a much more gentle curve and with half the angular displacement so all movements over it are smoother.

 

 

This is from an earlier mockup so I need to lay it more accurately and test it again.

 

The medium Y is the same length as the medium left and right points so it adds nothing to the overall length but does also make the overall S curve through the station gentler and you don't need a reverse curve within the platforms. 

 

There is still more end displacement than I'd like but I simply don't have room to use all large radius points on my planned layout.

 

I did try substituting a large radius turnout for the first set of points in the throat but that didn't seem to make much difference, possibly because Peco's large radius points curve beyond the frog to get to the same final divergence angle and a normal crossover would have straight track between the crossings. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

[Harlequin]

Here's a version of the Minories geometry that fits on the original 3.5ft by 1ft half-baseboard using more medium radius (914mm) Streamline points.

 

These journeys traverse the curves of small radius points once only:

• Up main => Platform 1
• Up main => Platform 3
• Platform 3 => Down main
• In and out of the loco spur

There are also some very short lengths of 610mm/2ft radius curving track, whose effect would be invisible in practice.

 

That's the best solution I can see at the moment. I'll publish a new PDF later.

 

 

PhilM

 

[Harlequin]

Hi Phil

 

I probably wouldn't set any pointwork closer than an inch or more from the board end but without using ANY small radius points you won't need to. With medium radius points, all the pointwork (apart from the points for the kickback siding) fits very comfortably onto a metre long board. I've got it laid out on one right now and the total length of the actual pointwork occupies 34 ¹/₂ inches which gives a tad more than two inches clear at each end. With 38 inches to play with, even with the hinge post,you should be fine. 

 

After a lot of playing around with it I have made one change to the original plan which is to substitute a medium radius Y (nominally 5ft radius) for the  first of the two back to back points. 

 

Minories basic with Y in centre throat.jpg

 

 I'm pleased with the result of this.  it does significantly reduces the end displacement between coaches in trains moving between the Up line and platform 1.  That is at the expense of an S curve  between platforms two and three and the down line but it's at a much more gentle curve and with half the angular displacement so all movements over it are smoother.

 

Minories med + Y test throat .jpg

 

This is from an earlier mockup so I need to lay it more accurately and test it again.

 

The medium Y is the same length as the medium left and right points so it adds nothing to the overall length but does also make the overall S curve through the station gentler and you don't need a reverse curve within the platforms. 

 

There is still more end displacement than I'd like but I simply don't have room to use all large radius points on my planned layout.

 

I did try substituting a large radius turnout for the first set of points in the throat but that didn't seem to make much difference, possibly because Peco's large radius points curve beyond the frog to get to the same final divergence angle and a normal crossover would have straight track between the crossings. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Hi Pacific231G,

 

We cross-posted (both beavering away at a solution, I suppose!)

 

I notice that you haven't included the points before platform 3 for the "parcels depot". Can you fit that in as well?

 

PhilM

[t-b-g]

There's your answer: the pointwork for which Minories was designed was nowhere near as generous as 1 in 7. Even today, Setrack points curve through 22.5° (which if my maths is correct is something ridiculous like 1 in 2.4) at 17 inches radius, and some sectional track in 1957 was likely tighter still. Along with the tight curves, flangeways were wide and wheelsets had loads of sideplay. Minories was a very practical solution for its context, while remaining railwaylike, which is a signature CJF characteristic.

 

I may have my answer but I am not sure what the question was! I do sometimes wonder if taking the original "Minories" design and altering it with different radius points and by taking out the double S bends results in a plan that is no longer a "Minories" but rather is inspired by "Minories".

 

The arrangement of pointwork and platforms works in an identical way operationally with larger radius points and with a straighter run through but is it still a "Minories"?

 

Now that one, I don't know the answer to!

[Pacific231G]

Hi Pacific231G,

 

We cross-posted (both beavering away at a solution, I suppose!)

 

I notice that you haven't included the points before platform 3 for the "parcels depot". Can you fit that in as well?

 

PhilM

Not on the same board unless you make it a small radius point (which rather defeats the purpose of not using small radius points)  and even then your points would be within half an inch of the ends of the board. I'm not really though very convinced by that single kickback parcels siding which looks to be just trying to fill in the dead space in the front right of the layout. I prefer somethnig like this:

 

(6 inch grid)

 

The centre folding seven foot board is fine for the basic pure passenger Minories but I actually find that 3ft 6in half board length slightly awkward  if you want any goods/parcels facilties as that requires at least one other turnout beyond the main throat. There isn't quite enough room for it on the right hand board so you either accept a longish gap between the main throat and the pointwork on the other board, which makes the layout a bit wider because of the angles involved, or you shift the entire throat to the left and lose some platform length. My intinct would be to use slightly shorter boards for the main folding section, make sure the tracks at the left hand end are parallel then add an extension piece. That's probably not a bad idea anyway as, depending on the space available, you could then have the short version for home use but a longer version for exhibtions.

The good thing about metre (39") length boards is that I know they'll fit in my car and are fairly comfortable to handle. I'll have a play with my version that includes Ys as that may avoid some of the width problem,

 

Update

Yes I think it has.

 

(6 inch grid 2x 42x12 inch boards total 7ft x 1ft)

 

The Y gives a shallower angle to the lefthand end of the main throat so the gap between the throat and the goods yard entry points doesn't throw it so far forward. II've allowed two inches minimum between the ends of points and the board ends.

 

This effectively gives you the same goods facilities as in the version of the original Minories with a goods shed alongside the passenger station but without having to use platform three as a goods reception road. A goods shed (or milk depot or whatever) at the right hand end in longitudinal low relief could act as a view blocker for the main line exit to the fiddle yard and you can just assume that this is one end of a larger goods yard. 

 

This is close to the plan I'm working up for a French version of the terminus. but I need to come up with a couple more ideas to give it more of a Gallic main line  and less of a City of London ambience. as well as lenthening I'll probably need to widen the layout a bit and  turn the loco layover road into a longer bay for autorails and postal/baggage vans

 

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Compound2632]

In 00, don't forget you can save length by trimming the points to get rather more prototypical 44 mm or 45 mm track centres rather than the 50 mm or 51 mm the Peco points give you - saves around 25 mm - 30 mm. Could make the difference between using small or medium. Saves width too!

Edited September 3, 2017 by Compound2632

[Pacific231G]

In 00, don't forget you can save length by trimming the points to get rather more prototypical 44 mm or 45 mm track centres rather than the 50 mm or 51 mm the Peco points give you - saves around 25 mm - 30 mm. Could make the difference between using small or medium. Saves width too!

Agreed and you can do that in H0 (European rather than American) as well. The Peco long points have a curved frog (I think)and contine to curve beyond the frog so has anyone tried straightening the  diverging track (and probably trimming them too) for more prototypical crossovers?. 

[The Johnster]

I may have my answer but I am not sure what the question was! I do sometimes wonder if taking the original "Minories" design and altering it with different radius points and by taking out the double S bends results in a plan that is no longer a "Minories" but rather is inspired by "Minories".

 

The arrangement of pointwork and platforms works in an identical way operationally with larger radius points and with a straighter run through but is it still a "Minories"?

 

Now that one, I don't know the answer to!

 

 

Nor me, but one of my prerequisites for a 'Minories' layout, and one specified by Cyril Freezer in the original concept, is that there are no reverse curves over pointwork.  Paradoxically, this introduces a reverse curve on the approach to the station, but not back to back.  Thus the plan in post 452 is a 'Minories', but the one in 455 is not, as it has a reverse curve over pointwork at the 'Y' point.  

 

I once drew something similar for a friend's N gauge layout using entirely curved Peco Streamline points on the approach to his station, all left handers in the approach direction, which was a way of fitting it into his bedsit and looked, if I say so myself, very effective in a flowing sort of way.  It was certainly Minories inspired, but not a Minories; there were no reverse curves over pointwork, but in fact there were no reverse curves at all as such.  It was very, I mean very, loosely influenced by Penzance.

[Harlequin]

OK, here's my revised drawing with every route in and out only having to traverse, at most, one small radius curve. It uses standard, unmodified Peco Streamline HO/OO points and it all fits on the original 7ft by 1ft baseboard.

 

I have to say, I'm pretty happy with it.

 

As before, the PDF has layers so you can turn off the fancier bits to just view the geometry if required, and zoom in to see the details.

 

 

Minories 15b.pdf Edit: Fixed a small problem with points list. Edit: Add proper credit to C J Freezer.

 

PhilM

 

Edited September 4, 2017 by Harlequin

[St Enodoc]

I may have my answer but I am not sure what the question was! I do sometimes wonder if taking the original "Minories" design and altering it with different radius points and by taking out the double S bends results in a plan that is no longer a "Minories" but rather is inspired by "Minories".

 

The arrangement of pointwork and platforms works in an identical way operationally with larger radius points and with a straighter run through but is it still a "Minories"?

 

Now that one, I don't know the answer to!

Tony, in my opinion (for what it's worth) a Minories derivative must have the characteristic arrangement of the four points forming the angled throat.

[St Enodoc]

OK, here's my revised drawing with every route in and out only having to traverse, at most, one small radius curve. It uses standard, unmodified Peco Streamline HO/OO points and it all fits on the original 7ft by 1ft baseboard.

 

I have to say, I'm pretty happy with it.

 

As before, the PDF has layers so you can turn off the fancier bits to just view the geometry if required, and zoom in and out to see the details.

 

Minories15.png

 

Minories 15.pdf

 

PhilM

Well done Phil. The only bit that doesn't quite look right to me is the entrance to the parcels depot and the consequent joggle in Platform 3. Would a Y point here help?

[Harlequin]

Well done Phil. The only bit that doesn't quite look right to me is the entrance to the parcels depot and the consequent joggle in Platform 3. Would a Y point here help?

 

Thanks. I'll investigate a small Y at that location but the "joggle" around the hinge post is faithful to the CJF original in "60 plans" and I rather like the reverse curve entry to the platform that it sets up, matching the other two.

 

Edit: A small radius Y doesn't help, unfortunately, because it turns the toe by the same angle as a small left and sends the parcels line off in the wrong direction:

 

And a large Y doesn't fit on the baseboard, by the way.

 

PhilM

Edited September 4, 2017 by Harlequin

[griffgriff]

Thanks. I'll investigate a small Y at that location but the "joggle" around the hinge post is faithful to the CJF original in "60 plans" and I rather like the reverse curve entry to the platform that it sets up, matching the other two.

 

Edit: A small radius Y doesn't help, unfortunately, because it turns the toe by the same angle as a small left and sends the parcels line off in the wrong direction:

Minories15 small Y.png

 

And a large Y doesn't fit on the baseboard, by the way.

 

PhilM

 

I see the problem but much how more leeway would there be if a short section of plain track was laid between the two turnouts?

 

Griff

[Pacific231G]

Nor me, but one of my prerequisites for a 'Minories' layout, and one specified by Cyril Freezer in the original concept, is that there are no reverse curves over pointwork.  Paradoxically, this introduces a reverse curve on the approach to the station, but not back to back.  Thus the plan in post 452 is a 'Minories', but the one in 455 is not, as it has a reverse curve over pointwork at the 'Y' point.  

 

I once drew something similar for a friend's N gauge layout using entirely curved Peco Streamline points on the approach to his station, all left handers in the approach direction, which was a way of fitting it into his bedsit and looked, if I say so myself, very effective in a flowing sort of way.  It was certainly Minories inspired, but not a Minories; there were no reverse curves over pointwork, but in fact there were no reverse curves at all as such.  It was very, I mean very, loosely influenced by Penzance.

Not quite true as the route between platform 1 and the Up (inbound) line over the two back to back points does involve an immediate reverse curve over pointwork and so is prone to buffer locking. However, it's the only one of the six possible routes that doesn't have a separation between the reversal of curves, so with that one exception, Minories is a much  smoother arrangement than an equivalent straight throat in the same length.

 

My modification of using a Y in the main throat avoids the problem of that one immediate reversal, without increasing the overall length, by almost doubling the radius of one of the curves and halving its angle but I accept that is at the expense of adding a similar but equally shallow reversal to two of the other routes.

I wouldn't claim that my plan in 455 is a pure Minories as it isn't but I'd argue that it is close enough and uses the same basic principles to be a modified Minories. That's very different from claiming any three platform  terrminus at the end of  a double track mainline as a version of Minories, though there was a lot of that around the time of the plan's 50th anniversary.. Modellers were building those before Cyril Freezer was born - there are a good number in Edward Beal's pre-war books- but what I think he achieved  was to squeeze a main line terminus quart into a branch line terminus sized pint pot and to come up with a specific arrangement of pointwork that not only achieved that but also gave it an impression of main line busyness.

 

Designing termini pointwork with no reverse curves at all is a fascinating exercise* and I'd love to see the plan you came up with for your friends's layout. Though I've never been there Penzance has always seemed like a good basis for compact main line terminus and having the MPD some distance away up the main line must give scope for some interesting light engine and pilot working.

 

* See post #72 for my favourite real world example. It took me ages to convince myself that there really weren't any reverse curves and that it was all done with off the shelf #7 left and right hand points and could still handle long main line stock

Edited September 5, 2017 by Pacific231G

[St Enodoc]

Looking at those two plans above, the straight version compared with the "true" Minories, the second one looks more prototypical to me and is very much along the lines of "Mansfield Market Place as built by me. That has 1 in 7 points and I don't experience any problems or poor appearance as the trains snake over them. With points like those, an 8' length is what is really needed, with a 4' board for the station throat and 4' for the platforms. I made the platforms longer to allow 8 coach trains.

 

The Freezer "Minories" drawings also had a reverse curve in the platforms too. So two of the platforms were in approximate alignment with the arrival and departure tracks but with a rather unlikely swing out to the side and then back onto the original alignment. That was always the least satisfactory element of the design as it looked a little unlikely to have happened on the real railways, although I am sure that somebody can come up with an example, I can't think of one.

 

I also wondered why the point for the loco spur wasn't a LH point immediately next to the point of the first cross over. It would have given a longer siding and you have a curve there just waiting for a point to be inserted. 

Tony, I just looked at the original plan again and it shows a low relief signal box in the 'concave' part of the loco spur. If the spur were straight as you suggest, there probably wouldn't be room for a full relief box  unless elevated in Buckingham style.

[St Enodoc]

Thanks. I'll investigate a small Y at that location but the "joggle" around the hinge post is faithful to the CJF original in "60 plans" and I rather like the reverse curve entry to the platform that it sets up, matching the other two.

 

Edit: A small radius Y doesn't help, unfortunately, because it turns the toe by the same angle as a small left and sends the parcels line off in the wrong direction:

Minories15 small Y.png

 

And a large Y doesn't fit on the baseboard, by the way.

 

PhilM

Phil, I must have looked at the plan dozens of time over the years but I never noticed the joggle before. My apologies! I have to say, though, that the reverse curve in platform 3 rather defeats the object of the throat pointwork and would probably look odd in the flesh. I expect that the island platform would just look too narrow though if the track ran straight from the point past the hinge block.

[Harlequin]

Tony, I just looked at the original plan again and it shows a low relief signal box in the 'concave' part of the loco spur. If the spur were straight as you suggest, there probably wouldn't be room for a full relief box  unless elevated in Buckingham style.

 

In the second edition of "60 plans for small railways" the space above the loco spur is marked as containing; "Coal stage", "Ashpit", "Water crane" and "Signal cabin".

 

In "60 plans for small locations" CJF shows nothing in that space because, "the scheme is even more applicable to the diesel era than it was to the steam age", and he suggests a Bo-Bo sat permanently in the loco spur.

 

Also in "60 plans for small locations" the very next layout design, SP36, is an expanded version of Minories with a straight loco spur connected to the crossover, as Tony suggests.

 

But to my eye, it's more pleasing to see the loco spur curved like the lines below it - more "rhythmic". (And I must confess that CJF's loco spur was a little straighter than mine!)

 

Phil

Edited September 4, 2017 by Harlequin

[roythebus]

I'm a little bit late to this thread (5 years!) but for my own interest I have recently drawn a plan of the original Minories layout and since it largely meets the OP's request I'm posting it here.

 

It uses standard Peco Streamline HO/OO parts and honours the original 7ft by 1ft baseboard size divided in the centre and joined by hinged posts.

 

The details of rails and sleepers are just indicative, not intended to be visually accurate. To see the layout geometry and to pick apart the details, view the attached PDF in Acrobat Reader, where you can turn different layers on and off.

 

I hope it's useful - it was very satisfying to draw.

 

Minories11.png

 

PhilM

 

Minories 12.pdf (Edit: Improved colour coding of geometry layer)

 

Has anyone bothered doing this in Templot yet? It would certainly iron out the sharp reverse curves and make an ideal small layout for those wishing to do a small layout experiment in track making.

[Pacific231G]

Has anyone bothered doing this in Templot yet? It would certainly iron out the sharp reverse curves and make an ideal small layout for those wishing to do a small layout experiment in track making.

Yes, as a worked example for new users, Martin Wynne included in Templot the data file for a layout based on Minories. It's called Engine Lane and it's in Gauge O Fine.

I think Tom Cunnington and the other MRC members who built the EM gauge Minoriesfor the 50th anniversary used Templot rather than off the shelf templates for their pointwork. They followed CJF's original plan as closely as possible but slightly lengthened the points to give more generous curves which lengthened the scenic boards to a total of 7ft 10ins.

Edited September 5, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Harlequin]

I have created a 3D model in Sketchup of a classic hinged box Minories layout plus a 6 road traverser fiddle yard before I (possibly) start to build one. These days I always create a computer model before I build anything so that I can really understand it and sort out the glitches before things go wrong in the real world. Sketchup is a really well-sorted, intuitive and powerful tool for doing this. It's an absolute joy to use and it's free!

 

The idea is to make boxes that are strong, will not flex or warp, are reasonably simple to build, will not weigh too much and can be moved easily when folded up.

 

The current plan is 9mm ply for the baseboards and traverser base, small-section Planed Square Edged joinery timber for framework and 6mm ply for the outer boxing, which stiffens up the structure and holds it all square, hopefully.

 

I'm still working some things out but here are two images (not rendered by any fancy photo realistic software - because my license has expired...):

 

Unfolded with track geometry:

 

Folded up for transport/storage with traverser segment on top:

 

When folded up the entire thing will be 1106 * 460 * 317 mm (plus a few protrusions). The ballast will have to be securely fixed to the segment that is upside down when folded!

 

I will post the Sketchup file for everyone when I've developed it a bit further.

 

PhilM

Edited September 11, 2017 by Harlequin

[Pacific231G]

I have created a 3D model in Sketchup of a classic hinged box Minories layout plus a 6 road traverser fiddle yard before I (possibly) start to build one. These days I always create a computer model before I build anything so that I can really understand it and sort out the glitches before things go wrong in the real world. Sketchup is a really well-sorted, intuitive and powerful tool for doing this. It's an absolute joy to use and it's free!

 

The idea is to make boxes that are strong, will not flex or warp, are reasonably simple to build, will not weigh too much and can be moved easily when folded up.

 

The current plan is 9mm ply for the baseboards and traverser base, small-section Planed Square Edged joinery timber for framework and 6mm ply for the outer boxing, which stiffens up the structure and holds it all square, hopefully.

 

I'm still working some things out but here are two images (not rendered by any fancy photo realistic software - because my license has expired...):

 

Unfolded with track geometry:

Minories 7.png

 

Folded up for transport/storage with traverser segment on top:

Minories 7 folded.png

 

When folded up the entire thing will be 1106 * 460 * 317 mm (plus a few protrusions). The ballast will have to be securely fixed to the segment that is upside down when folded!

 

I will post the Sketchup file for everyone when I've developed it a bit further.

 

PhilM

Very neat Phil. I think my only comment on the design would be to avoid making the terminal end of the layout too much of a structural solid wall as you'll then have the option of adding a lengthening section to both this and the fiddle yard for exhibitions. I've noticed that Tom Cunnington and Co. have now added a short loco release traverser to the end of platforms 1&2 on their EM gauge "Minories GN" hidden beneath the "Optional Station Building & Scenic Feature" of the original 1957 plan

 

 

Before

With short release added

 

 

This possibility of extension was always intended by Cyril Freezer "Should additional length be available at any time the platform can easily be extended with a short section of baseboard carrying three parallel tracks: even a foot would be a valuable addition."

Structurally, if the end board has a rectangle cut out of it to allow such an extension, especially if it's only platforms 1&2 that can be extended, that wouldn't weaken it significantly and it would also afford you a lovely end-on view of the station.As here on Bradfield Gloucester Road

 

I'm still a bit doubtful about the use of small radius points but Peco's pdf templates are free so you can always print some of them off to lay it out and try a few items of rolling stock before you commit to serious carpentry.  I've measured CJF's original plan and it's between twenty eight and thirty inches from the main line entrance (from the fiddle yard) to the far end of the trailing point leading onto platform one. Laying it out with Peco Streamline  small radius points I got a total length  of  twenty eight and  a half inches which, if you allow an inch or so for the entrance tracks, is about right

However, running a pair of 10" long coaches over the critical route between the inbound track and platform one (the reverse curve through the two back to back points) gave this much throwover 

 

.I don't know what points Cyril Freezer based the 1957 design on, Streamline was still several years in the future and, in the "Peco Topics" article on the next page of that edition of RM, Peco's spiked track is quoted as having 36" radius points.  I'm pretty sure that Pecoway points and Individulay components such as cast frogs were also nominally three foot radius point. As a design for the just announced TT-3 it was possibly based  on the fifteen inch radius points that GEM were already advertising for the scale.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Ian_H]

Square!

[Harlequin]

Very neat Phil. I think my only comment on the design would be to avoid making the terminal end of the layout too much of a structural solid wall as you'll then have the option of adding a lengthening section to both this and the fiddle yard for exhibitions. I've noticed that Tom Cunnington and Co. have now added a short loco release traverser to the end of platforms 1&2 on their EM gauge "Minories GN" hidden beneath the "Optional Station Building & Scenic Feature" of the original 1957 plan

 

 

Before

AllyPally07-0122.JPG

With short release added

Dscf3714.jpg

MRC Minories May2016- 037.jpg

 

 

This possibility of extension was always intended by Cyril Freezer "Should additional length be available at any time the platform can easily be extended with a short section of baseboard carrying three parallel tracks: even a foot would be a valuable addition."

Structurally, if the end board has a rectangle cut out of it to allow such an extension, especially if it's only platforms 1&2 that can be extended, that wouldn't weaken it significantly and it would also afford you a lovely end-on view of the station.As here on Bradfield Gloucester Road

009.JPG

 

I'm still a bit doubtful about the use of small radius points but Peco's pdf templates are free so you can always print some of them off to lay it out and try a few items of rolling stock before you commit to serious carpentry.  I've measured CJF's original plan and it's between twenty eight and thirty inches from the main line entrance (from the fiddle yard) to the far end of the trailing point leading onto platform one. Laying it out with Peco Streamline  small radius points I got a total length  of  twenty eight and  a half inches which, if you allow an inch or so for the entrance tracks, is about right

However, running a pair of 10" long coaches over the critical route between the inbound track and platform one (the reverse curve through the two back to back points) gave this much throwover 

Minories throat 2ft radius 2x10 inch coaches .JPG

 

.I don't know what points Cyril Freezer based the 1957 design on, Streamline was still several years in the future and, in the "Peco Topics" article on the next page of that edition of RM, Peco's spiked track is quoted as having 36" radius points.  I'm pretty sure that Pecoway points and Individulay components such as cast frogs were also nominally three foot radius point. As a design for the just announced TT-3 it was possibly based  on the fifteen inch radius points that GEM were already advertising for the scale.

 

Thanks for the thoughts and the photos.

 

My box design currently only has a sheet of ply at the platform end so it would be very easy to "knock through" and extend the platform lines:

 

I will take your advice and check the throwover on the route into platform 1 before I go much further. The points in my 2D drawings are exact (scale) geometrical templates of Peco streamline parts and I can print the entire drawing at real world size using Acrobat's "Poster" printing feature. Then I can lay the printout on a table and place real points and track on top. Slight problem: I only have one "coach" at the moment but that can be overcome.

 

I could perhaps model the coaches and track in the computer to check throwover but that would be going too far. You've got to draw the line somewhere!

 

I am really concentrating on the 1989 revision of Minories from "60 plans for small locations", when I guess Peco Streamline points had the same geometry as the present day. That design is labelled, "Minimum radius 3ft 0in", but I'm pretty sure it's not possible to fit the pointwork onto the stated baseboard size with only 3ft radius curves using standard Streamline parts. In the Introduction to that booklet CJF says, "All layouts are designed for 4mm scale, OO gauge, and [snip] use Peco Setrack and Streamline products. [snip] I have chosen 1ft 3in absolute minimum [radius], and have regarded 2ft as the optimum". So I think that "3ft" label on the Minories plan was probably an oversight. (Perhaps you or one of the other RMWeb experts could shed some light on this...?)

 

PhilM

[St Enodoc]

Very neat Phil. I think my only comment on the design would be to avoid making the terminal end of the layout too much of a structural solid wall as you'll then have the option of adding a lengthening section to both this and the fiddle yard for exhibitions. I've noticed that Tom Cunnington and Co. have now added a short loco release traverser to the end of platforms 1&2 on their EM gauge "Minories GN" hidden beneath the "Optional Station Building & Scenic Feature" of the original 1957 plan

 

 

Before

AllyPally07-0122.JPG

With short release added

Dscf3714.jpg

MRC Minories May2016- 037.jpg

 

 

This possibility of extension was always intended by Cyril Freezer "Should additional length be available at any time the platform can easily be extended with a short section of baseboard carrying three parallel tracks: even a foot would be a valuable addition."

Structurally, if the end board has a rectangle cut out of it to allow such an extension, especially if it's only platforms 1&2 that can be extended, that wouldn't weaken it significantly and it would also afford you a lovely end-on view of the station.As here on Bradfield Gloucester Road

009.JPG

 

I'm still a bit doubtful about the use of small radius points but Peco's pdf templates are free so you can always print some of them off to lay it out and try a few items of rolling stock before you commit to serious carpentry.  I've measured CJF's original plan and it's between twenty eight and thirty inches from the main line entrance (from the fiddle yard) to the far end of the trailing point leading onto platform one. Laying it out with Peco Streamline  small radius points I got a total length  of  twenty eight and  a half inches which, if you allow an inch or so for the entrance tracks, is about right

However, running a pair of 10" long coaches over the critical route between the inbound track and platform one (the reverse curve through the two back to back points) gave this much throwover 

Minories throat 2ft radius 2x10 inch coaches .JPG

 

.I don't know what points Cyril Freezer based the 1957 design on, Streamline was still several years in the future and, in the "Peco Topics" article on the next page of that edition of RM, Peco's spiked track is quoted as having 36" radius points.  I'm pretty sure that Pecoway points and Individulay components such as cast frogs were also nominally three foot radius point. As a design for the just announced TT-3 it was possibly based  on the fifteen inch radius points that GEM were already advertising for the scale.

Pecoway points were certainly 36" nominal radius, according to the Peco catalogues I mentioned in an earlier post.

[Karhedron]

I'm still a bit doubtful about the use of small radius points but Peco's pdf templates are free so you can always print some of them off to lay it out and try a few items of rolling stock before you commit to serious carpentry.  I've measured CJF's original plan and it's between twenty eight and thirty inches from the main line entrance (from the fiddle yard) to the far end of the trailing point leading onto platform one. Laying it out with Peco Streamline  small radius points I got a total length  of  twenty eight and  a half inches which, if you allow an inch or so for the entrance tracks, is about right

However, running a pair of 10" long coaches over the critical route between the inbound track and platform one (the reverse curve through the two back to back points) gave this much throwover 

Minories throat 2ft radius 2x10 inch coaches .JPG

Peco small-radius points are roughly 30" radius, yes?