Harlequin

Was this layout ever published anywhere? Might there be some info about it on the web?

I was thinking mainly about helices within the typically restricted spaces of British layouts and as a contained sub-part of the layout rather than being wound around and through the layout. I should have said that in the OP. Obviously there's some maths and basic physics involved here but I have the feeling that many builders don't think about those things and just go ahead and build something that fits in their space before finding out whether it works. Thanks @t-b-g. That wonderful photos says something interesting: it may be that only a small increase in radius makes a big difference to the feasibility of a helix because it will have a big effect on the gradient. I think that particular helix looks like about 3ft radius. Does that sound about right? @34theletterbetweenB&D I'm very open to changing the parameters. Why do you think it's important to allow for stopping and restarting on the helix? That would seem to make the test more difficult to achieve.

Whenever I see a helix being proposed in a layout design my immediate reaction is, "Oh dear. Never mind. Maybe your next layout will work..." But is that reaction justified? Can a helix ever work successfully? What's your opinion? My negative opinion of them is partly based on personal experience of a ~300° double-track helix on an old layout. It was about 600mm radius and rose about 150mm if I'm remembering it correctly. My Dad and I thought it was a really clever solution when we designed it but in practice it limited the trains that could actually make the climb up to the big station on the top level and contributed to the ultimate demise of the layout. I'm also put off by the dubious "solutions" to traction problems that many people resort to, such as magnetic systems, because of all the new problems that seem to come with them. What's your experience? Have you got personal experience that would help answer this question? Tales of both Triumphs and Disasters are welcome! What does it take to make a helix work in practice? I wonder if we could establish the minimum parameters of a working helix for two distinct scenarios: Helix Scenario A: Steam traction with 6 or 8 driven (coupled) wheels, hauling 8 bogie coaches or 24 non-bogie wagons. Helix Scenario B: "Modern image" traction with 4 or 8 driven wheels spread across one or two locos or power cars, hauling 8 bogie coaches or 24 non-bogie wagons. Let's assume that we are talking about current British 4mm OO models in both cases. *Without any third party traction assistance. To control some other variables let's say that the train should be running at 50% throttle at the bottom of the helix, that the driver can ensure there's no wheel slip in the driving wheels and the helix "works" if the train can just crawl out of the top (or better). Edit: I am thinking mainly about helices within the typically restricted spaces of British layouts and as a contained sub-part of the layout rather than being wound around and through the layout.

I can't fit the large Y in my plan to smooth the route into platform 3: You can see that it gets perilously close to the hinge column and fouls the baseboard joint. You might say, "Ah but you've still got your 3° turn in the ladder" but if I remove that and go for Medium radius turnouts throughout: You can see that the line is now too far away from the hinge post and either makes platform 3 shorter or thinner or will move all the other platforms up to compensate - and still the final turnout, whether Medium or Y, fouls the baseboard joint. When space is this tight, and there are obstructions like the hinges to take into account, planning has to be precise! I think that having the loco spur come off the diagonal is more aesthetically pleasing than making a boring straight connection to the outbound line. It curves in the same way as the platform lines beside it. In the Introduction to 60 Plans for Small Locations CJF says, "...the pointwork is set out to use Peco Setrack and Streamline products...", strongly implying that they would be used as-is, so trimming turnouts feels like cheating when trying to reproduce a CJF original plan.

This is the best I could achieve in trying to reproduce SP35 in unmodified Streamline parts (a combination of small and medium radius turnouts): The problem with using a small Y anywhere in the ladder is that it turns one of the routes too much to comfortably fit the formation within the 1ft width limit. The reverse curves in the platform lines have quite large radii so they shouldn't be a problem. They could be removed by allowing the platforms to be diagonal but would that be diverging from the Minories concept too much?

I must admit I imagined the connection being angled so that cassettes don't project so much into the room. If the area is fully scenic then the scenic break isn't needed and the station could perhaps extend into the existing layout area slightly to gain a bit of extra length for this relatively major station.

The version of Minories in 60 Plans for Small Locations has the kick-back "parcels siding" or "storage road" and so needs 5 turnouts, and yet is quoted as Minimum radius 3ft.

Yes, in the second edition of 60 Plans for Small Railways the axonometric drawing shows two scale bars alongside it, one for TT-3 and one for OO. The TT-3 scale indicates the layout is 5ft long and the OO scale indicates 6ft 8in by only 9in! In this book it is simply referred to as "Plan 49s" - not yet referred to as Minories. In 60 Plans for Small Locations (first published in 1989, my edition from 1996) it has become Plan SP35 and has the Minories name. A new axonometric drawing shows it as 7ft by 1ft and the loco spur is around 12in long. It quotes a minimum radius of 3ft but I take that with a huge pinch of salt because I know it's not possible using Streamline parts - the point ladder simply won't fit into 3ft 6in.

What about a cassette connection near the front of the "scenic FY" so that when stock is away in the rest of the world it is actually physically not present in your model world... (It's stored on shelves somewhere in the room.) In other words, the scene really is fully scenic - a terminus where two lines meet in Y formation, just like Barnstaple Victoria Road, where the backmost Y arm trundles off into your branch line and the frontmost arm to the rest of the world hits the baseboard edge and stops (at the cassette connection point). I know cassettes are something of a marmite suggestion but at least in N it would be easier to store whole trains without the cassettes becoming unmanageable!

Both! I don't think flowering plants really show that density and intensity of colour in real life. Some highly-bred garden plants might, but not natives. You might be able to do dandelions better with just tiny dots of yellow scattered over the grass - just like my lawn! Foxgloves often only have a few flowers open on the spike at any one time, the rest are buds or gone over.

I'm not sure about those flowering plants...

It's lovely but I would venture to suggest that doesn't qualify as a true Minories because the throat is very different - incorporating a sophisticated curving scissors by the look of it!

Hi Ian, I just read the entire thread trying to get an idea of what your roof structure is going to look like (and the eaves detail in particular) but enlightenment eluded me. Have you got any drawings? P.S. Did you insert DPC under your joists?

Even contemporary plans in current magazines sometimes look a bit suspicious to me - especially the curve radii used in freehand sketched plans. I have shown at least that Minories can be done using Streamline turnouts in the original 7ft by 1ft space. It's somewhere further back in this thread I think, and in my blog. I'm actually thinking of making a version of Minories in the original form, folding in the middle and I've got an idea for a period treatment that would suit it. All the versions of Minories I've ever seen have changed or expanded on CJF's original concept in some way so maybe something close to the original would have some individuality now?

That's a grey area and I'm not sure what RMWeb's position on that is (although I admit I have done that myself). Give it a go.

If there's a copyright claim at all that will almost certainly prevent reproduction in any form. If it's a very modern book you might find some fair usage statement or reference to a public license scheme. Thanks Pete. I know it's a pain but you've done the right thing! I'm sure that people who can answer your questions will have all the same books, and more, so you should still get some great info.

Hi Pete, Do your books allow the images to be reproduced?

HI Steve, You really do need to start your own thread but in the meantime this is the only place to continue the discussion. So, having advised against gradients and hidden track, here's a rough idea that uses gradients and some small sections of hidden track! The thinking is that if you are going to angle the terminus station then you will have a space in the top left corner (because you wouldn't want very deep baseboards there) and so why not use that deep space to form your return loop. The neat thing about doing that is the access space serves double duty - it allows you to get to the back of the terminus board and to get at trains and track for the outer circuits and the return loop. There's no attempt to have hidden storage loops - the return loop is just a single track that crosses under the terminus as directly as it can to minimise conflict with point motors on the level above and then runs along the front edge for easy access. The exact levels would have to be thought about but you have plenty of running length to make it work. Three quarters of the space is scenic with just the storage loops non-scenic in the remaining quarter. (Admitedly the main double track roundy doesn't stay in the scenic parts for very long.) I don't think it quite holds together to be honest, but it's food for thought anyway.

Hi Ian, I used Rockwool in the wall panels. Cheaper than wool, medium eco-friendly (not petro-chemical). and breathable. The roof was insulated with rigid foam partly because I had a lot left over from work on my house but also, importantly, to make a "warm roof" structure to avoid condensation problems.

I think you should use that picture as your desktop background!

Thanks Steve, It looks like you could have either a straight or curved throat. I'm always worried when people talk about "storage loops under" because that really multiplies the constructional and operating problems up to a new level (hah hah!) It will eat space in the middle of the room, give you access problems and gradient problems. My suggestion would be to try to create a roundy-round all on the level with the station either inside or outside the main circuit. Quick sketch to scale with a 305mm (1ft) grid and 7 coaches @ 260mm each over the buffers to give some idea of platform length and where the throat might be positioned:

Storyboard of the construction of my workshop 5 years ago: I designed it and built it all except for the concrete base and the fibreglass roof covering.

The inbound line only seems to be directly connected to the two lines nearest to us in that photo. Minories, of course, gives direct access inbound to all platforms. Using the natural angle of the first trailing crossover to turn the running lines across the face of the platforms is one of the key characteristics of Minories. It’s entirely valid to remove it and solve the problems in a different way but then it’s not Minories any more, IMHO.

Hi @SteveyDee68, Can you tell us the dimensions of the space available for the station and ferry dock and the position of the double track connection to the rest of the layout, please? A sketch would be great.