Minories 1983

[Jesse]

Hi All,

I must admit: The longer I've been looking for a real-world prototype to model, the more fond I've really grown of Cyril Freezer's Minories layout. I won't bore you with all the reasons why I like the elegant simplicity of the design, as it has been extensively discussed.

So, I've made up my mind and build myself a little Minories.

The facts:
-N scale, using Peco code 55 track - medium points. DCC operation
-120x20 cm, foldable in the middle.
-Depicting a run down inner-city terminus, located probably somewhere in the North. (Imagine London Broad street in its final years) It's served mainly by short 2-4 car commuter trains (classes 101, 108 etc.) but a loco-pulled train might pop up every now and then.
-I've chosen for 1983 (which completely coincidentally is my birth year) so I can run both BR blue and blue-grey stock.

The challenge I've set myself is to stay as close as possible to Mr. Freezers original design. Which leads me to a question: I've seen numerous Minories designs, all of course having in common the 3 platforms, short engine bay and 2-track station throat. But did the original plan have any further sidings? Or did those first appear in later varieties of the design?

I drew up a layout with an extra siding (probably I'll use that for a refuelling facility), but if it wasn't there originally, it's out. The point leading to it is in the middle of the fold, so it has to be moved anyway.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Jesse

[Zomboid]

That extra siding is there in my copy of 60 plans for small spaces. I'd want to have it, but I doubt its essential.

[Flying Pig]

I've a feeling it wasn't in the first version without goods facilities, but I'm sure you could find the definitive answer by scouring one of the many Minories themed threads on the forum! Given your board split, I would leave it out rather than disort the rest of the plan to fit the point in!

[brigo]

If you have space for an extra 20 cm in length, then you could move the split 10 cm to the left, so the point and engine bay are clear of the join. You would then have space at the left hand end for a station building and concourse to link the platforms.

 

Just a thought

 

Brian G

[colin penfold]

My third edition of 60 plans.... has two versions, one with the kickback as shown on your plan, but then with two goods sidings off it, next to the third platform I.e. making your kickback into a headshunt.

[Jesse]

That extra siding is there in my copy of 60 plans for small spaces. I'd want to have it, but I doubt its essential.

 

Would that be this plan, which seems to be quite an old version of Minories (1961?)? 

 

I've a feeling it wasn't in the first version without goods facilities, but I'm sure you could find the definitive answer by scouring one of the many Minories themed threads on the forum! Given your board split, I would leave it out rather than disort the rest of the plan to fit the point in!

 

Well, I read mostly all of them today. A lot of interesting thoughts about many aspects of the plan, but I have yet to find out how exactly it looked the first time it was published. Probably without siding, but I'm not quite shure. I did manage to find a way to fit the siding in without distorting the plan too much. The bottom track would be just long enough for a 3-car class 101 to reach the siding.

 

 

If you have space for an extra 20 cm in length, then you could move the split 10 cm to the left, so the point and engine bay are clear of the join. You would then have space at the left hand end for a station building and concourse to link the platforms.

 

Just a thought

 

Brian G

 

That would be a good solution, but I would really like to keep the total length within 120 cm as I found out I can just fit it on the kitchen table that way, together with a fiddle yard. I'll build the station building in (very) low relief.

 

My third edition of 60 plans.... has two versions, one with the kickback as shown on your plan, but then with two goods sidings off it, next to the third platform I.e. making your kickback into a headshunt.

 

I would like to keep this layout passenger-only as that's my main interest and I think any goods services to these type of stations would have gone by the 80's. The other version you mention, was without any sidings?

[colin penfold]

Would that be this plan, which seems to be quite an old version of Minories (1961?)? 

 

 

My edition has two versions, the one you show but without the headshunt, and then a second version at 1'5" wide with the headshunt and two kickback sidings. If you dont want goods it could be a parcels depot, loco stabling or carriage shed.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I am sure that the original did not have the extra siding.

 

That said, I think an extra siding is a good idea as it can add quite a lot of operating interest either as a carriage siding or a parcels depot. If one does not want to make the layout longer, the siding could be accessed through a double-slip or a three-way turnout replacing one of the simple turnouts.

[colin penfold]

I am sure that the original did not have the extra siding.

 

That said, I think an extra siding is a good idea as it can add quite a lot of operating interest either as a carriage siding or a parcels depot. If one does not want to make the layout longer, the siding could be accessed through a double-slip or a three-way turnout replacing one of the simple turnouts.

Freezer's version is no longer than the one without sidings. The sidings are a kickback from the headshunt on the plan linked to in post 6, above. The turnout is just to the right of the point leading from the single platform to the headshunt.

 

edit to say if the headshunt was too short for carriage siding use, you could extend it into the fiddle yard

Edited July 11, 2015 by colin penfold

[CloggyDog]

The issue with the siding is that it conflics with pfm 3. That said, for a run-down station in it's final years, you could abandon pfm 3, leaving a loco-length headshunt to access the refuelling road. and have the rest of the road lifted and the platform face disused?

 

I think, if I were wanting to add another loco road, I'd replace the 2nd point in on the up road with a double-slip and run the loco road off that, with a trap point as protection - you could even extend this to 2 or 3 longer sidings to hide the front of the fiddle yard and be more of a MU-refuelling facility, not just locos? Also, that road would be able to access all 3 platform roads. Don't forget, double-slips weren't available when CJF designed Minories, but had they been, it's likely he would have integrated one (or more) into the design.

Edited July 11, 2015 by CloggyDeux

[Joseph_Pestell]

The issue with the siding is that it conflics with pfm 3. That said, for a run-down station in it's final years, you could abandon pfm 3, leaving a loco-length headshunt to access the refuelling road. and have the rest of the road lifted and the platform face disused?

 

I think, if I were wanting to add another loco road, I'd replace the 2nd point in on the up road with a double-slip and run the loco road off that, with a trap point as protection - you could even extend this to 2 or 3 longer sidings to hide the front of the fiddle yard and be more of a MU-refuelling facility, not just locos? Also, that road would be able to access all 3 platform roads. Don't forget, double-slips weren't available when CJF designed Minories, but had they been, it's likely he would have integrated one (or more) into the design.

 

I agree that a city terminus would more than likely have had slip points. But perhaps by 1983 the layout would have been simplified to just plain turnouts. CJF was, albeit for the wrong reason, ahead of his time.

 

I still hate the entirely unnecessary double reverse curve. CJF had it in there to reduce length to a minimum. But in N, that probably is not necessary.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Freezer's version is no longer than the one without sidings. The sidings are a kickback from the headshunt on the plan linked to in post 6, above. The turnout is just to the right of the point leading from the single platform to the headshunt.

 

 

 

I know that.  But the fold line in the original did not affect  any points as it does in Jesse's revised N gauge version.

[colin penfold]

I know that.  But the fold line in the original did not affect  any points as it does in Jesse's revised N gauge version.

  

I am sure that the original did not have the extra siding.

 

That said, I think an extra siding is a good idea as it can add quite a lot of operating interest either as a carriage siding or a parcels depot. If one does not want to make the layout longer, the siding could be accessed through a double-slip or a three-way turnout replacing one of the simple turnouts.

I was responding directly to your statement which only referred to length, sorry for not being psychic.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Jesse has not put much detail on the plan as to scenery.

 

I rather prefer CJF's later versions of Minories with the station on a viaduct rather than in a cutting. Not only very typical of many city stations but makes for better layout view.  It also allows one to bring the home signals onto the layout which would be on the other side of a road overbridge for sighting reasons.

[Jesse]

I agree with Joseph Pestell and CloggyDog, a double slip would make far more sense than a siding only accessible via platform 3. It would be quite a short siding though, not long enough for MU's:

 

 

I still hate the entirely unnecessary double reverse curve. CJF had it in there to reduce length to a minimum. But in N, that probably is not necessary.

 

Do you mean the platform curves? Or the throat layout? I must say, as a non-engineer and someone enjoying railways mostly for their atmosphere, I find them esthetically very pleasing!

 

Jesse has not put much detail on the plan as to scenery.

 

I rather prefer CJF's later versions of Minories with the station on a viaduct rather than in a cutting. Not only very typical of many city stations but makes for better layout view.  It also allows one to bring the home signals onto the layout which would be on the other side of a road overbridge for sighting reasons.

 

I'll go for a cutting probably, leaving the front open for viewing. I quite like the idea of using a road overpass as a hinge. Still not sure about signalling though. My previous layouts all were without any signalling and I must admit there's a lot to learn for me about British signalling and how to make it work in N scale. 

Edited July 11, 2015 by Jesse

[Moxy]

The issue with the siding is that it conflicts with pfm 3. That said, for a run-down station in it's final years, you could abandon pfm 3, leaving a loco-length headshunt to access the refuelling road. and have the rest of the road lifted and the platform face disused?

 

 

If I were building this, I would go the other way and make the siding disused, perhaps with a few permanent way wagons on it, and use Platform 3 for the parcels traffic.

 

Given that this a run down urban terminus in a 1980's Northern town, the siding is likely to be part of a former siding network leading to a coal yard or goods yard that has long since closed and is more likely to be redundant than in use by this date.

 

I also think it unlikely there would a refuelling point there at all.  I can't think of any urban termini that had such facilities, the only terminus with a refuelling point that springs to mind is Buxton, but that is hardly urban and that facility was to support freight traffic, not passenger. (I'm happy to be proved wrong on that point if anyone knows of termini with refuelling points).  Most locos and units would be refuelled at their home depot and have enough fuel to get there and back. 

 

Building a refuelling point would have cost money and BR wouldn't spend money unless it was absolutely necessary, so unless the terminus is a very long way from a major depot, it wouldn't have a refuelling point.

[Clive Mortimore]

Jesse has not put much detail on the plan as to scenery.

 

I rather prefer CJF's later versions of Minories with the station on a viaduct rather than in a cutting. Not only very typical of many city stations but makes for better layout view.  It also allows one to bring the home signals onto the layout which would be on the other side of a road overbridge for sighting reasons.

Hi Joseph

 

A quick trip round London shows.

 

Cutting, Kings Cross, Moorgate, Liverpool Street, Victoria, Marlybone and Euston. 6

 

Viaduct, St. Pancras (as built), Board Street, Fenchurch St, London Bridge, Cannon St, Blackfriars, Holburn Viaduct, Hammersmith (Met and GW joint) and Waterloo. 9

 

Ground level, Paddington. 1

[Flying Pig]

I still hate the entirely unnecessary double reverse curve. CJF had it in there to reduce length to a minimum. But in N, that probably is not necessary.

The layout of the station throat was intended to eliminate tight reverse curves in the crossovers, not to save length, and I doubt whether the reverse curve in the main platform roads saves more than a very small fraction of an inch. What it does achieve is to accommodate the lower platform at a realistic width without having to push the bay forward and increase the overall width of the layout. I'd be surprised if that was not in CJF's mind when he first drew it.

 

Visually, I find Minories layouts drawn with dead straight platforms look oddly dog-legged. The balancing curve on the original keeps the overaĺl station axis straight and to my eye looks attractive. I also remain to be convinced that it is unrealistic as termini in cramped city locations could involve quite tightly curved platforms.

 

Regarding the kickback siding, IMO a probable original use for this would be fish and perishables or horse and carriage traffic arriving as tail loads on passenger trains. By 1983 this traffic would be long gone and the loading bank possibly demolished, leaving an orphaned siding whose former use was not obvious to the casual observer. The most likely use as already suggested would be stabling of locos or units - dedicated parcels trains would be handled in the main station, though a lot of parcels went in the van of passenger trains at this period.

 

I feel the same about fuelling facilities in small locations like this as Joseph_Pestell does about unnecessary reverse curves ☺.

[trisonic]

My biggest problem with a truly modern Minories layout is: boredom. A small terminus with modern EMU’s (or DMU’s) shuttling in and out is mind-numbing....anyone go spotting lately at Fenchurch Street?

 

OK, someone will have..........

 

Best, Pete.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I can cope with a reverse curve in the platforms or a reverse curve in the approach - but not both. It is like a double negative; it takes you back where you started. So a real railway would just have continued in a straight line.

[Joseph_Pestell]

My biggest problem with a truly modern Minories layout is: boredom. A small terminus with modern EMU’s (or DMU’s) shuttling in and out is mind-numbing....anyone go spotting lately at Fenchurch Street?

 

OK, someone will have..........

 

Best, Pete.

 

Just a little earlier in era (1970s) would justify some loco-hauled suburban trains. But some people like DMUs.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hi Joseph

 

A quick trip round London shows.

 

Cutting, Kings Cross, Moorgate, Liverpool Street, Victoria, Marlybone and Euston. 6

 

Viaduct, St. Pancras (as built), Board Street, Fenchurch St, London Bridge, Cannon St, Blackfriars, Holburn Viaduct, Hammersmith (Met and GW joint) and Waterloo. 9

 

Ground level, Paddington. 1

 

A typo there. But Board Street would make quite a good name for a Minories layout.

[Jesse]

Ok, the fuelling facility is gone. Still in doubt whether I should the siding or not. It could be a track left of a former fish platform or horse and carriages facility, as Flying Pig suggests. Not sure what I will use it for, but it might come in handy and there's just some empty space there on the layout...

 

 

By the way I quite like watching DMU's go in and out the station, and besides why shouldn't there be a loco-hauled train every now and then?

Edited July 11, 2015 by Jesse

[Clive Mortimore]

A typo there. But Board Street would make quite a good name for a Minories layout.

Fair point Joseph, I have dyslexia so at times I get things wrong. How about you admitting you asumption was incorrect about terminus stations instead of picking on a very minor error.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Fair point Joseph, I have dyslexia so at times I get things wrong. How about you admitting you asumption was incorrect about terminus stations instead of picking on a very minor error.

 

Clive,

 

Sorry if you have felt offended. I took it as a typo (as I am a pretty poor typist) not a mis-spelling or "error".

 

What assumption did I make about terminus stations that was incorrect? I am not London-centric but your survey of London termini tended to validate my point - more city stations on viaducts than in cuttings.