Jump to content
 

Layout Plan


Lacathedrale

784 views

Changelog:

  • 2/12/21 - Initial Draft
  • 3/12/21 - Removal of throat options
  • 15/12/21 - Removal of track standards discussion from this entry

 

Overall View

Minories is a small urban terminus layout designed by Cyril Freezer to promote TT Gauge, the arrangement of two facing branch crossovers permitting simultaneous arrival and departure to the station, and ensuring they must only navigate one reverse curve. My layout is a fairly as-wrote Minories, the only concession to originality being the additional departure-only platform 1.

 

The baseboards consist of two 4'6 x 18" station boards shown below, two 45 degree corner boards, and a 4' traverser as a section of main line and fiddle yard. The overall footprint is an 8' x 13'6" L-shape:

 

image.png.82b52a2ddf2975d63515675e122197cf.png

Track Plan v2.1 - Updated 15/12/21

 

From top to bottom - Pilot locomotive shed, P1, 2, 3 4.

 

With reference to the track plan, P1 (top) was originally drawn as a dock. While @t-b-g does make an excellent point that the dock's use as a non-platform location to store stock is lost - but i am considering the operation of my prototype inspiration, where there are a number of operational kinks that can be adopted to mitigate against losing the unique appearance:

  • The original station had distinct arrivals (P4, bottom) and departures (P1, top) platforms.
  • The shorter platform siding (P3) already has a carriage dock, leading to the cab stand on the other side of P4
  • In later years the station effectively dedicated the two inner platforms (P2 and P3) for newspaper and parcels traffic.
  • None of these are particularly evident on the track plan apart from the departure-only P1, but I hope will make up for the unique look of the dock siding.

image.png

Edited by Lacathedrale

  • Like 4

6 Comments


Recommended Comments

  • RMweb Premium

If you don't mind me saying I think the 'simple' track design looks better whatever the gauge you decide to use. Doesn't look so bunched up, flows better with larger curvature to the pointwork. I'm not sure what the single slip and 3-way bring to the party except perhaps added complication. But then I am a 'less is more' follower.

 

Bob

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

Looks interesting.

Regarding track laying the best reasons for building your own turnouts is a) you enjoy it and b) it is the only way to get a real flow to trackwork.

 

A regards EM/P4 a lot depends on what locos and stock you want if it will all be kit built a lot of kits these days allow for P4 I believe  but if you are planning to use rtr you may find it is a lot of extra work. I admit I haven't tried P4 I went from EM to 2mFS . The main reason for going EM was the rubbishy standard of 00 in those days ( late 70s ).

 

Don

Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

Another vote for the "simple" trackwork.  It has more finesse and less fussy to my eye.

 

Regardless, I've been following your journey (from a distance) so it will be good to watch as this comes to fruition.

 

Best

 

Scott.

  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Premium

And one more vote for the 'simple' version, William. I would think that the loco spur needs to be longer and will also require  a trap point.

 

I would go for EM as somewhat better looking in track terms than 00 and a little more 'forgiving' than P4. I suppose that I shouldn't say that being both a 2FS modeller and a member of the Scalefour Society!

 

No more prevarication William. Seize the moment!

 

David

Link to comment

Well, objectively the 'complex' throat is shorter and so not quite as hard up against the baseboard edges, and has a knock on effect of increasing the platform lengths of the two south platforms by 6" - but I think you're right that the simple throat does not look more elegant.

 

I have released as per my latest blog entry, that I should really be using 12' straight-planed, loose-heel switches instead of B-types to properly represent 19th century LNWR trackwork. Certainly, I don't NEED to - but why not? I have updated the simple throat to v2.0, using B6 turnouts for the dock and loco siding. The net result is a few inches of space saved, and an increase of the minimum radius by another 3" on the approach tracks - so I'm going to take that as a win!

 

It looks like there's a kink coming out of the turnout into the southernmost platform road, but it is just the nature of the straight planed switchblades and the set for them.

Edited by Lacathedrale
  • Like 1
Link to comment

Incase it didn't ping you, thank you @DavidLong @scottystitch and @Izzy for that feedback. Sometimes being in the weeds makes it hard to see how it's really taking shape.  @Donw the layout is/was always going to be pre-grouping, so that is going to mean a fair bit of kit building and bashing whatever happens, Even someone like the SECR who are now well served by RTR are missing key locomotive types such as the Large and small Scotchmen, a Q, and all of the various SER and LCDR types which would have still been extremely common across the system, to say nothing of meaningful NPCS representation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

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
×
×
  • Create New...