Theory of General Minories

[Matloughe]

I occasionally operate my Minories layout with a single track, (weekend engineering works or some such)

 

I used AnyRail to give me the plan which I made slightly less complex then originally planned. The additional lines I wanted were too tight on the width of the board. Like you the layout is 8'x1' and with a 4' long fiddle yard board during operation. All trackwork being Peco Code 100 Streamline.

 

What sort of era do you plan to make it in, for example if its post-steam as has been pointed out rationalisation could have occurred etc.

 

Cheers,

~ Gary

[t-b-g]

I am currently working on a "Minories" type layout, which is not quite true to the original concept of minimum space because it is 20ft long. All the pointwork is on a single 4' board, allowing for mechanical operation without any cross baseboard arrangements being necessary. Once you have that station throat sorted out, you can make the platforms and fiddle yard as long as you like, as long as they are balanced with each other for train length purposes. In my case, each is 8' long, although I am doing the fiddle yard with points, so the maximum train length will be a loco plus 6 bogie carriages (pre-grouping short bogie carriages). That way, the train will never overpower the platform length.

 

One feature of the original plan, which I wasn't too keen on was the reverse curve through the pointwork and the way the tracks slewed over beyond the platform and then back towards the centre of the board. There may be real places like that but to me, it always shouted out "model" rather than "real" railway. It as done like that to utilise Peco Y points because of their great advantage in saving length and as I have a bit more space available I have straightened the throat up.

 

Cyril Freezer's original design is probably one of the most influential and downright clever plans in the history of our hobby. He once told me himself that he often tried to "tweak" it to improve it but never bettered the original concept. Here is a rather poor snap of what we have done....

 

 

 

I hope that my slight variations haven't spoilt the concept but we are exhibiting it soon (at EXPO EM North), so we shall find out then!

[Mike W2]

I occasionally operate my Minories layout with a single track, (weekend engineering works or some such)

 

I used AnyRail to give me the plan which I made slightly less complex then originally planned. The additional lines I wanted were too tight on the width of the board. Like you the layout is 8'x1' and with a 4' long fiddle yard board during operation. All trackwork being Peco Code 100 Streamline.

 

What sort of era do you plan to make it in, for example if its post-steam as has been pointed out rationalisation could have occurred etc.

 

Cheers,

~ Gary

 

 

Mid-late 80's Scotrail, kinda like a mini version of my loft layout. My loft layout is a U shape 14ft by 10ft, with platforms to hold an 8 coach train, so I can replicate the push-pull trains. I just fancy building a small portable layout, that is easy to fit in a car and can be exhibited easily. So it'll feature local passenger and parcels trains, mostly class 26, 27 and 37's.

 

thanks

Mike

[Pacific231G]

On 09/08/2012 at 23:27, Mike W2 said:

I've been having a go with the Peco point templates, using the medium radius, I'm going to try again with small radius points as I think the medium are too big. I agree the pointwork is crucial but I'd still like a scale plan if poss as a starting point to work from.

 

thanks

Mike

Mike. Did you get the PM I sent you last night?

I'm not sure about using small radius points because, unless you're modelling something like the Underground, passenger stock will have a very unnatural amount of sideways displacement between coaches on the movement between the up (i.e. fiddle yard to station) line and the middle platform. That rather defeats the main virtue of Minories which is the way that trains flow through it without lurching over crossovers. If you really have to get the throat length down further then I'd suggest at least keeping medium radius for the two back to back points. With all medium radius points though the pointwork fits comfortably into three feet.

 

 

I've drawn out the basic throat in Xtrcad and within half an inch this does come to the same length in reality.

 

These are my Xtrkcad diagrams of the throat pointwork with scales.

 

 

 

Someone commented that the Minories throat is quite long but, unless you save length with slips, any layout that connects three or even two platforms with both up and down main lines is going to be at least four points lengths long, in other words the length of two crossovers.

 

I hope that's useful

Edited August 21, 2020 by Pacific231G
grammar

[Katier]

I hope that my slight variations haven't spoilt the concept but we are exhibiting it soon (at EXPO EM North), so we shall find out then!

 

Unfortunately yes it has.

 

Minories is designed so that all platforms are accessable from all roads. As you've designed it you have to arrive in one platform (which is bi-directional) but the other two platforms are departure only. To 'cure' this you need to move the second 'between cross-over' point to the other side of the nearest cross-over, OR, replace that point and the nearest point with a double slip point. The latter would allow you to keep the length down.

[Mike W2]

Mike. Did you get the PM I sent you last night?

I'm not sure about using small radius points as, unless you're modelling something like the Underground, passenger stock will have a very unnatural amount of sideways displacement between coaches on the movement between the up (i.e. fiddle yard to station) line and the middle platform. That rather defeats the main virtue of Minories which is the way that trains flow through it without lurching over crossovers. If you really have to get the throat length down further then I'd suggest at least keeping medium radius for the two back to back points. With all medium radius points though the pointwork fits comfortably into three feet.

 

 

I've drawn out the basic throat in Xtrcad and within half an inch this does come to the same length in reality.

 

These are my Xtrkcad diagrams of the throat pointwork with scales.

 

 

 

Someone commented that the Minories throat is quite long but, unless you save length with slips, any layout that connects three or even two platforms with both up and down main lines is going to be at least four points lengths long, in other words the length of two crossovers.

 

I hope that's useful

 

Yes I did thanks. I would have replied sooner but I've been busy wih work all day - the joys of being self-employed!

 

I think I may have cracked it using Y points and small points. The problem is with regards to the fiddle yard, first of all I've no idea how to make a traverser and second, the traverser would need to be longer than one of the baseboards, to fit the required train length.

 

So not only does the 3ft have to have all the points for the station throat, it needs 2 points to make the double track into a 4 road fiddle yard.

 

thanks

Mike

[Orion]

Why not try a turntable or sector plate fiddle yard. These are much easier to do than a traverser.

 

In truth, it seems as though you are modelling in the wrong gauge - though you presumably have a good reason for doing this in OO. I think that N gauge or even OO9 would be far more suitable for something the size you want.

[Mike W2]

As mentioned, I already have a OO gauge loft layout, modelling the same era so if I want to make a smaller portable layout it makes sense (financially) to use some of the locos and rolling stock from that, rather than start from scratch in another scale. Besides I really don't like N gauge models, I know they are much better these days but to me they still look far too toy like.

 

thanks

Mike

[Pacific231G]

I can't quite get it to work on anyrail either. The problem also is the baseboards would be 4ft by 1ft and given the max train length is something like 4ft 4 or 5in, I'm not sure a traveser would work and I've even tried saving some length on the point work by using a 3 way point.

 

So my question is - has anyone got any ideas about how this can be done. My criteria would be the following.

 

1) Max train length is a class 37 or 47 plus 4 mk 1 or 2 coaches, approx 4ft 4 or 5in. At least 2 platforms would need to accomodate this length train and all of the fiddle yard sidings.

2) The baseboards are 4 ft by 1 ft, with a total length of 12ft

3) The track plan is to be based on Minories with 3 platforms and a loco stabling siding and the trains must be able to enter the scenic section and arrive at any platform and vice versa.

 

thanks

Mike

I've been through all this myself trying to design a terminus to handle main line trains (steam era SNCF in H0 scale) in the same twelve foot length and needing four coaches plus a shorter fourgon (brakevan) for a credible "rapide". I think you may be trying to squeeze too much into the proverbial pint pot and I suspect that Mk1 or Mk 2 coaches may just look a bit toylike going through small radius pointwork but I'd be interested to see what you've come up with using Ys.

 

One possible answer is to abandon the idea of a double track main line. Scotland does have plenty of single track main lines with the bonus of four coach main line trains being perfectly prototypical even with restaurant cars or sleepers. That way you save the length one of the crossovers and you could disguise the single track by making it a false double track where the second line is actually a headshunt. The original Fort William terminus with just two points in its throat (plus a releasing crossover that I gather wasn't much used) is probably too simple though it did handle a surprisingly varied range of operations.

I do though understand the attraction of a double track main line but to have that and four coach trains in twelve feet I think you may have to accept a non point fiddle yard such as a sector plate.

[t-b-g]

Unfortunately yes it has.

 

Minories is designed so that all platforms are accessable from all roads. As you've designed it you have to arrive in one platform (which is bi-directional) but the other two platforms are departure only. To 'cure' this you need to move the second 'between cross-over' point to the other side of the nearest cross-over, OR, replace that point and the nearest point with a double slip point. The latter would allow you to keep the length down.

 

Thanks for the comments and I can see why you say that. With the layout in that state and our first show 5 weeks away, starting to rip up and re-lay track is not really an option!

 

The point you mention, regarding the reduction in arrival platforms was actually one that I made after a bit of plotting the operation of the layout.

 

The idea is that there is only one arrival platform, requiring some smart station work from the pilot to clear the platform before another passenger train can come in. There are only two platforms now as the centre road is a "holding road" and will also be used for ECS arrivals and arrivals of fish/newspaper trains, which will then be shunted to the dock on the left hand side.

 

There will be 4 different ways of dealing with an incoming train. A fresh loco can be backed on and it can depart straight on another working. The pilot can remove the stock to the off stage carriage sidings, the pilot can shunt the stock to the centre road and leave it there or it can be put in the other platform ready for a new loco to back down onto it. I am also toying with the idea of the train loco reversing the stock to the carriage sidings. I know it happened in real life but I am not sure if it will look right on the model. With the original design, there wasn't really any need to shunt stock from one platform to another and that is something I wanted to include. It also simplifies the signalling (or it will when I get some done!).

 

The general idea is that there is one arrival platform and one departure platform (with the option of a second departure platform if necessary) plus a centre road (to give a slight look of Chesterfield Market Place), a fish/parcels dock and the loco spur. We are also incorporating a system where we can have the train loco following departing stock up the platform, so it isn't left at the buffer stops, as has been discussed on another thread recently.

 

I did spend a bit of time looking at the operational possibilities before I laid any track. My concern is not so much whether the layout will be interesting to operate but more if it has strayed too far from "Minories" to be called one!

Edited August 14, 2012 by t-b-g

[The Stationmaster]

I did spend a bit of time looking at the operational possibilities before I laid any track. My concern is not so much whether the layout will be interesting to operate but more if it has strayed too far from "Minories" to be called one!

I think the only resemblance it has to Minories is that it's a terminus with a curve in the approach The operational rationale is completely different from Minories which was a design intended to give maximum platforming and turnround flexibility as an 'inner city' (as we would now call it) terminus whereas you have produced something far more akin to some of the earlier ideas on how a terminus would be worked with separate arrival and departure platforms and a deliberate lack of flexibility in the track layout.

 

As you have now explained it I can see it providing some interesting operational challenges some of which will automatically restrict the frequency of trains - in my view that's no bad thing on a model of a railway because you are not tempted into running processions of trains but can still have plenty of movement activity. Nice design rationale there I reckon.

[Katier]

Interesting reply, ironically Emmyton is an unintentional Minories adaptation ( I planned it before seeing Minories) and in my case is a 4 platform station which, like Minories, has all platform faces with arrival and departure. Unlike Minories, however, the platform lengths are noticeably different with the result that each platform can still serve different operational interest.

 

For example an excursion might be limited to platform one (and temporarily foul the departure cross-over ) but generally 2 and 3 would be departure as 1 won't have much in the way of waiting room facilities. Therefore trains will often arrive in 1 and be shunted to 2 for departure. 3 would be mainly push-pull/railcar/DMU's due to lack of run-around while platform 2 would handle departures shunted around from 1.

 

In addition ( of course ) if you follow Minories faithfully it doesn't have crossovers on the platform roads. Thus chances are while all platforms are bi-directional some stock shunting is the norm.

[The Stationmaster]

 

In addition ( of course ) if you follow Minories faithfully it doesn't have crossovers on the platform roads. Thus chances are while all platforms are bi-directional some stock shunting is the norm.

If the stories about CJF's inspiration for Minories are correct the prototype it was based on would have used turnover engines so didn't need any release crossovers. This type of working is typical of intensively operated termini as it allows very rapid turnrounds (I've an inkling it was less than 10 minutes on some routes at Liverpool St?) but it wasn't practicable with long distance services in the past.

[Karhedron]

If the stories about CJF's inspiration for Minories are correct the prototype it was based on would have used turnover engines so didn't need any release crossovers. This type of working is typical of intensively operated termini as it allows very rapid turnrounds (I've an inkling it was less than 10 minutes on some routes at Liverpool St?) but it wasn't practicable with long distance services in the past.

It is interesting to see how operational ideas evolved over time. Penzance as rebuilt in 1939 only had an engine release for platforms 2 and 3. Some stock shunting and a station pilot were clearly envisaged. I suppose an arriving engine could have used the crossover and then shunted its own train into platform 1 or 4 for form the next departure but I don't know if this was common in practice.

 

Of course Penzance was not worked with anything like the same intensity as envisaged for Minories. I think in practice most trains had come a long way and would usually be shunted into the sidings for cleaning rather than being worked straight out.

[Kenton]

Why not try a turntable or sector plate fiddle yard. These are much easier to do than a traverser.

 

Opinions may vary on that - mine certainly does.

 

The support table size is irrelevant for a traverser (or for that matter a sector plate) as it is only a support for the track table. The problem comes with long support tables is that they are unwieldly to manage and more difficult to build and align. Not to mention the problems when moving with stock. But anything is better than cassettes of this sort of length.

 

I always have a problem with the definition of "Minories" the essential elements are so obvious that the prototype formation of point access must have been replicated many times over. Calling it "Minories" is a simple convention and a nod to its "discovery" for model railways. The requirements of platform access is universal.

[t-b-g]

I think the only resemblance it has to Minories is that it's a terminus with a curve in the approach The operational rationale is completely different from Minories which was a design intended to give maximum platforming and turnround flexibility as an 'inner city' (as we would now call it) terminus whereas you have produced something far more akin to some of the earlier ideas on how a terminus would be worked with separate arrival and departure platforms and a deliberate lack of flexibility in the track layout.

 

As you have now explained it I can see it providing some interesting operational challenges some of which will automatically restrict the frequency of trains - in my view that's no bad thing on a model of a railway because you are not tempted into running processions of trains but can still have plenty of movement activity. Nice design rationale there I reckon.

 

Many thanks for the comments.

 

I am one of those sad people, who instead of watching telly or reading a book to relax, I get a pad and a pencil and doodle layout designs. When I first came up with this one, it was dead straght and the pointwork still is. The curve only happens after the pointwork and that is a feature from Chesterfield. That gets away from the track being parallel to the baseboard edge, which hopefully makes what is quite a simple plan more visually appealing.

 

Looking at it, I will claim a couple of other slight "Minories" features in that all the pointwork is on one board, allowing for nice and easy mechanical linkages with no cross baseboard linkages and there is a short spur for the station pilot to sit on but you are quite right, the overall rationale and the operational side will be quite different.

 

I have started work on the lever frame today and I am hoping that the points will be operational before too long. I have been working out the lengths of the pushes and pulls in the rodding and introducing compensators as I have a dread of getting into difficulty if temperature variations are like the ones we had at Wells this weekend.

 

When fully completed, the layout will be run as pre-grouping Great Central (it probably doesn't show in the photo but the pointwork is based on GCR drawings) but there is a lot of stock building to be done before I get there so locos and stock will be scrounged from elsewhere for the time being, hence the Royal Scot!

[Joseph_Pestell]

 

As an aside, if you want a good example of a slightly larger terminus that did bear a strong resemblance to Minories then have a look at Birkenhead Woodside. The throat is basically Minories, the main changes are an extra pair of platforms and the centre roads. They have even used a slip to save space.

 

 

 

 

Woodside, with its mixture of GWR and LMS, would seem like a good option for many modellers if goods traffic not required. Might need to scale back the roof a bit though so as to be able to see the trains.

[Pacific231G]

On 14/08/2012 at 12:20, The Stationmaster said:

If the stories about CJF's inspiration for Minories are correct the prototype it was based on would have used turnover engines so didn't need any release crossovers. This type of working is typical of intensively operated termini as it allows very rapid turnrounds (I've an inkling it was less than 10 minutes on some routes at Liverpool St?) but it wasn't practicable with long distance services in the past.

Not so much stories. "Many years ago I stood on Liverpool Street (Met) studying the trackwork. It was almost but not quite a terminus! However, at the time no 00 gauge commercial double slip was on the market, and whilst doodling I hit on the track formation of Minories. I have never been able to improve on it...the arrangement of crossovers is a particularly happy one for it ensures that no matter whether arriving or departing, to any of the three platform roads, each train has only one reverse curve to take and most are fairly easy. It has the added advantage of looking impressive" (Model Railways Sept 1981)

The lack of releasing crossovers was always deliberate. The plan was originally published in the April 1957 Railway Modeller and in the article he says "No run-rounds are provided, for most trains would be tank-engine hauled, a spare engine being held on the loco road between trains." That article came the month after the first article describing Tri-ang's new TT-3 range which had been announced at the Toy Fair the previous month. Peco already had a range of spiked TT track including 19" radius points and as the first stock released by Tri-ang consisted of a Jinty 0-6-0T, suburban composite and brake second, a and a small range of wagons and the original Minories plan fitted into exactly 5 feet in TT-3 (6'3" 6'6" in 00) I was always pretty sure that he'd designed it with that stock and the Peco track in mind. All his subsequent versions of Minories were for three foot radius points in 00 and grew to seven and eight feet long.

I've spent a day operating Brian Thomas' Newford a Southern Electric 0 scale layout that followed Minories almost exactly and did find its operating potential a bit limited even though Brian had added a centre road for stock between platforms one and two

(It's since been sold and incorporated into David D'arcy's "Littleton"

) .

 

However the group in the MRC who built a 50th anniversary EM gauge tribute layout as closely as possible to the original plan say that operating it as an intensively worked suburban terminus is challenging as it's easy to get the loco moves snookered.

Edited December 17, 2020 by Pacific231G
correction of baseboard lengths

[Karhedron]

I've spent a day operating Brian Thomas' Newford a Southern Electric 0 scale layout that followed Minories almost exactly and did find its operating potential a bit limited even though Brian had added a centre road for stock between platforms one and two.

It looks like it is mostly multiple-unit operation so you lose the shunting aspect. Perhaps this is where Minories Mk2 with the goods shed would be good as you could still have some loco-hauled services (parcels, newspapers etc) with a bit of shunting.

 

Having said that it is a beautiful layout.

[Pacific231G]

On 14/08/2012 at 21:15, Karhedron said:

It looks like it is mostly multiple-unit operation so you lose the shunting aspect. Perhaps this is where Minories Mk2 with the goods shed would be good as you could still have some loco-hauled services (parcels, newspapers etc) with a bit of shunting.

 

Having said that it is a beautiful layout.

It is indeed and certainly captured the Southern Electric atmosphere that I remembered from stations like Reading Southern. You do seem to get away with more compression in larger scales- something to do with how much the eye can take in at a glance which isn't so apparent in photos. It was built on a single six foot board for the throat and two four foot boards for the platforms including the concourse. It could handle a four carriage EMU comfortably though not five but in 0 scale a 4-BEL was pretty convincing as the complete Brighton Belle.

 

You're right that it was and AFAIK still is mostly MU- that's one of Brian's interests and David D'arcy has added an EMU depot. As Newford there were loco hauled passenger and parcels trains and with the "loco spur" as a parcels siding and the additional centre track there were some shunting moves but it was enough to convince me that I would want some goods activity as well.

I've never found CJF's original goods shed version of Minories so good as it effectively uses the third platform as a goods reception road. His later version that added another track in front of platform 3 and used that as the head shunt for a kickback goods yards seemed far better without adding as much width nor hiding the station itself and still only losing one point's length from platform 3.

 

One nice touch was that the layout's last appearance as Newford was at the Larger Scale Show in Reading and Brian invited Cyril Freezer to drive the very last train.

 

Mike, delving through the files I've found an article Paying Homage to Minories in the August 2007 Railway Modeller and that does include a scaled plan using short radius poinits that with fiddle yard fits into twelve feet. It's based on two metre long boards for the scenic section but maximum train length of four feet is still a bit shy of your requirement.

Edited August 21, 2020 by Pacific231G

[RJS1977]

I suppose by reversing the goods yard and putting it in front of the FY, you can double the length of the scenic part of the layout without increasing the length of the layout itself.

[Karhedron]

I suppose by reversing the goods yard and putting it in front of the FY, you can double the length of the scenic part of the layout without increasing the length of the layout itself.

Yes, if you are willing to increase the width of board a bit and avoid the narrowing at the station throat, all sorts of possibilities open up. I sketched out on plan in N gauge which had a kickback leading to a milk bottling plant to add some extra freight possibilties. There was also a small MPD accessible, not a full-blown engine shed, just a servicing point for coal, water and turning.

 

I replaced some of the points with slips to enable access to these areas but a compact urban station is just the sort of place where such complex features would be likely to be found.

[beast66606]

As an aside, if you want a good example of a slightly larger terminus that did bear a strong resemblance to Minories then have a look at Birkenhead Woodside. The throat is basically Minories, the main changes are an extra pair of platforms and the centre roads. They have even used a slip to save space.

 

That is my photograph of my diagram ... I know it can only have come from me because I own the original (book of diagrams) and have done for many years, it also cost me a not inconsiderable amount of money to buy it. It's even numbered as DASnnnn.jpg.

[Dave777]

However the group in the MRC who built a 50th anniversary EM gauge tribute layout as closely as possible to the original plan say that operating it as an intensively worked suburban terminus is challenging as it's easy to get the loco moves snookered.

 

And that is, I feel, an area where Minories gets misunderstood - CJF always had a leaning towards designing layouts with operating interest in mind and it's that 'intensely worked' aspect, with passenger trains arriving and departing near constantly, that he had in mind with Minories. I've probably seen 3 examples at exhibitions (not a lot, I accept) but all were essentially operating with a 'one engine in steam' principle, which I felt kinda missed the point a little. I've always wanted to see more than one train movement at a time - I've never seen a Minories that had a train arriving and departing at the same time.

 

To be honest, it's also that aspect that's made me a little dubious of its suitability for a home layout for myself. The limited scenery means it's a quick build, which ticks a major box for me, but I've never been too sure if the plan is ideal for a single operator. I'm undecided, and happy to listen to experiences of folks who have done this. It just feels that I'd be using a plan designed for intense operation but then not actually operating it intensely! Does that matter? I don't know.

[Karhedron]

That is my photograph of my diagram ... I know it can only have come from me because I own the original (book of diagrams) and have done for many years, it also cost me a not inconsiderable amount of money to buy it. It's even numbered as DASnnnn.jpg.

Hello,

 

Yes it is you diagram. I am sorry for reposting it without your permission. I assumed you would be happy with this as you have posted it on RMWeb before. I simply copied it from another thread.

 

I have removed the image from this thread and I apologise for any offence.