Theory of General Minories

[St Enodoc]

1 minute ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

One thing I'm not clear about is why?  Why have two reverse curves when the straight run in is more prototypical, less prone to buffer locking and not any longer?

 

Is it just the aesthetic appeal?  I find it a bit contrived, and I have a dislike of the main route being through the diverging route of a turnout, but I'm funny that way

 

 

It's the reverse curves through the crossovers with no intervening straight section that the Minories concept eliminates (on three routes out of four). Not only does this improve the aesthetics but it also reduces the risk of buffer-locking when propelling. If the main lines exit the scene at an angle to the platforms you can eliminate the problem on the fourth route too, as has been shown earlier in this topic.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

29 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Phil, 49s and 50s in the second edition are identical to 51 and 52 in the first. In the third edition the plan is named as Minories and both the earlier versions are shown as S53 and S54. By the 4th edition the original (but redrawn in what CJF calls a "Quasi-isometric" projection) is SP35 and the new version with the kick-back to the parcels area is SP36. SP37 incorporates Minories in an 8ft x 5ft out-and-back layout with a large loco depot within the reverse loop.

Was there a modular version in one of the books, which added separate and different sized modules for an engine shed, a Junction, a goods depot (etc..?).  From memory they all had minimum baseboards (ie: no space for scenery).  I can’t remember if Minories was the terminus or another station?  
 

(Many years ago now I got rid of my CJF Plan books as I was spending my available modelling time reading and drawing plans and never building anything - it saved a bit of space I suppose).

 

Platform widths can be another area for discussion / debate / selective compression - there are minimum prototype standards, but the combination of shorter trains (and platforms), viewing angles and low relief modelling can fool the eye in the modeller’s favour when it comes to width too.  Harlequin has highlighted the original width of Minories as 9” for three tracks and two platforms (one being double sided).  I suspect the platforms were very narrow?

[Keith Addenbrooke]

8 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

It's the reverse curves through the crossovers with no intervening straight section that the Minories concept eliminates (on three routes out of four). Not only does this improve the aesthetics but it also reduces the risk of buffer-locking when propelling. If the main lines exit the scene at an angle to the platforms you can eliminate the problem on the fourth route too, as has been shown earlier in this topic.

Did different railway companies have different practices with regards to separating or combining Arrival / Departure platforms?  If modelling a terminus that kept them separate then I guess the flexibility / advantage of Minories reduces (other then the aesthetic).  I guess it may be an ‘era’ thing?

 

(My apologies if this has been covered previously - I’m only just keeping up with today’s posts, sorry).

Edited June 5, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke

[St Enodoc]

10 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Was there a modular version in one of the books

Not in the ones I have, Keith, although I have seen one here on RMweb:

 

 

10 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

9” for three tracks and two platforms (one being double sided).

Three tracks at Peco spacing take 6 inches. An island platform at 2 inches and a side platform at 1 inch would fit but would look very cramped.

Edited June 5, 2020 by St Enodoc

[St Enodoc]

6 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Did different railway companies have different practices with regards to separating or combining Arrival / Departure platforms?  If modelling a terminus that kept them separate then I guess the flexibility / advantage of Minories reduces (other then the aesthetic).  I guess it may be an ‘era’ thing?

 

(My apologies if this has been covered previously - I’m only just keeping up with today’s posts, sorry).

That's true but the idea of Minories and many others is that trains can arrive and depart from any platform.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

15 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

It's the reverse curves through the crossovers with no intervening straight section that the Minories concept eliminates (on three routes out of four). Not only does this improve the aesthetics but it also reduces the risk of buffer-locking when propelling. If the main lines exit the scene at an angle to the platforms you can eliminate the problem on the fourth route too, as has been shown earlier in this topic.

 

Ah, of course - Peco 'british style' turnouts have a continuous curve in the diverging leg.  

 

this is why I use Peco 'american style' turnouts on which the diverging route is straight through the frog and beyond.  

 

 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

 

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.

 

 

That makes perfect sense then. I was going on the plans as drawn above for the earlier version. It would be impossible to fit 5 LH/RH points in 3'6" but in 3' 7" you should just get away with it or see below!

 

17 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

One thing I'm not clear about is why?  Why have two reverse curves when the straight run in is more prototypical, less prone to buffer locking and not any longer?

 

Is it just the aesthetic appeal?  I find it a bit contrived, and I have a dislike of the main route being through the diverging route of a turnout, but I'm funny that way

 

 

 

It is the one aspect of the plan I am not keen on. The original plan had what I see as an unnecessary second reverse curve in the platform. As far as I can tell, the only reason why it is necessary is because of the use of one standard size of point. If Y points had been included, the second reverse curve can be carefully removed, in in the version with the kick back siding. As the Y is shorter than the normal point, using a Y for the kick back would allow it to all fit on a 3' 6" board.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

4 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

That's true but the idea of Minories and many others is that trains can arrive and depart from any platform.

Agreed - I did most of my growing up* on the line out of Birmingham Moor St (which has been built using a Minories design).  We could generally tell which platforms the DMU’s would use depending on whether they were going to Solihull / Dorridge or Shirley / Stratford.
 

I suppose my point would be that, if I was modelling a company / era that kept arrival and departure lines separate, Minories might not be the best plan to use.  Although, of course, if you like it and it fits...

__________

 

* Not sure where I’ll do the rest of my growing up, if it happens at all.

[St Enodoc]

1 minute ago, t-b-g said:

It is the one aspect of the plan I am not keen on. The original plan had what I see as an unnecessary second reverse curve in the platform. As far as I can tell, the only reason why it is necessary is because of the use of one standard size of point. If Y points had been included, the second reverse curve can be carefully removed, in in the version with the kick back siding. As the Y is shorter than the normal point, using a Y for the kick back would allow it to all fit on a 3' 6" board.

I agree Tony. The "two crossovers" concept is brilliant but were I building one I'd probably try to draw the plan in the form of a shallow "V", with the platforms pointing up at 12 degrees to the left and the main lines at 12 degrees to the right (if that makes sense). More width needed but worth a try I think.

[t-b-g]

5 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Agreed - I did most of my growing up* on the line out of Birmingham Moor St (which has been built using a Minories design).  We could generally tell which platforms the DMU’s would use depending on whether they were going to Solihull / Dorridge or Shirley / Stratford.
 

I suppose my point would be that, if I was modelling a company / era that kept arrival and departure lines separate, Minories might not be the best plan to use.  Although, of course, if you like it and it fits...

__________

 

* Not sure where I’ll do the rest of my growing up, if it happens at all.

 

I did follow that idea in my take on Minories. Being pre-grouping, I went for two platforms plus a centre carriage siding/holding road. One platform is for departures only, the other can be used for departures but is generally used for arrivals only unless it is a "quick turnaround" local train where another loco goes on the back and it goes straight out again. I did mention it and post a photo a few pages back but things move on and it is easy to miss posts from a while ago.

[Harlequin]

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? 

 

Edited June 5, 2020 by Harlequin

[Keith Addenbrooke]

12 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I did follow that idea in my take on Minories. Being pre-grouping, I went for two platforms plus a centre carriage siding/holding road. One platform is for departures only, the other can be used for departures but is generally used for arrivals only unless it is a "quick turnaround" local train where another loco goes on the back and it goes straight out again. I did mention it and post a photo a few pages back but things move on and it is easy to miss posts from a while ago.

Found it, thank you for the pointer - my apologies for the repetition, Keith.

[JohnR]

4 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

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 are very wide curves. They could be removed by allowing the platforms to be diagonal but would that be diverging from the Minories concept too much? 

 

 

I think thats an excellent "Minories" and very true to the original idea. 

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

Ah, of course - Peco 'british style' turnouts have a continuous curve in the diverging leg.  

 

 

Most of the Streamline turnouts are straight from the crossing onwards (the large points are an exception).  There can still be a problem with the swing of long vehicles when a crossover is formed with them as @Pacific231G has written about more than once in connection with Minories (quite possibly on this thread, but there are so many of them!).

 

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

It is the one aspect of the plan I am not keen on. The original plan had what I see as an unnecessary second reverse curve in the platform.

 

I think that may be in order to get a wide enough platform between the down line and the bay without having to widen the layout.  And such arrangements, while unusual, aren't entirely unknown on the prototype.

[t-b-g]

38 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

I think that may be in order to get a wide enough platform between the down line and the bay without having to widen the layout.  And such arrangements, while unusual, aren't entirely unknown on the prototype.

 

I think it was necessary for a few reasons, one being a need to keep the width down, another being that the angle of the points swings the lines so far over to the front that you need to get them back and the third is the lack of variety of points available at the time.

 

The two main platforms don't look too bad and the curves can be made to look very gentle. It is the S bend between the toe of the point to the kickback siding and Platform 3 which looks the worst. It just looks as if it is only there because a standard point was used. I had wondered about changing it for a RH point, so the line into the platform is straight there but then that just shifts the problem of reverse curves to the route from Pl 3 to the siding. That is why I suggested a Y point there. I don't have the skill or ability to draw a plan like Harlequin did but if anybody fancies doing one with that LH short point replaced with a Y point, my instinct tells me that the alignment of Pl 3 would look much better.   

Edited June 5, 2020 by t-b-g
To add content

[Zomboid]

23 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

That is why I suggested a Y point there. I don't have the skill or ability to draw a plan like Harlequin did but if anybody fancies doing one with that LH short point replaced with a Y point, my instinct tells me that the alignment of Pl 3 would look much better.

Yes, I think it does. The other two platforms don't need to be as curved either as a result.

 

The thick black line is the fold in the baseboard of the original idea, other points are shorts and mediums as per Harlequin's version above. (Baseboard is 18" wide but it would clearly work at 12", 6" grid)

Edited June 5, 2020 by Zomboid

[Flying Pig]

33 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

The two main platforms don't look too bad and the curves can be made to look very gentle. It is the S bend between the toe of the point to the kickback siding and Platform 3 which looks the worst. It just looks as if it is only there because a standard point was used.

 

I hadn't noticed that and quite see what you mean.  Of course, standard points were all there was from Peco when the plan was published, but there really needs to be a straight between the points there to give the correct spacing for the bay without a reverse curve. However, in the original plan that would have placed the point right across the baseboard join. 

 

A short Y wouldn't work there, as it has twice the usual divergence angle and simply substituting it for the left point would result in a reverse curve into the bay and the kickback siding.  A long Y would ease the reverse curve into the siding, but is almost certainly too long to fit the original boards.

 

Edit: cross posted with Zomboid and I see the long Y does fit.

Edited June 5, 2020 by Flying Pig

[t-b-g]

8 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Yes, I think it does. The other two platforms don't need to be as curved either as a result.

 

The thick black line is the fold in the baseboard of the original idea, other points are shorts and mediums as per Harlequin's version above. (Baseboard is 18" wide but it would clearly work at 12", 6" grid)

 

I like that. All the good bits of the original plan without the only aspect I wasn't keen on.

[Zomboid]

5 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

A long Y would ease the reverse curve into the siding, but is almost certainly too long to fit the original boards.

I used a long Y above, but it's definitely a squeeze. The right-most point is hard up against the end of the board.

 

I think the original boards are a bit too short anyhow. Having 3'6" for two locos (arriving and departing ones) and all the carriages is probably not enough for most people. I could handle 3 bogie coaches and a CCT as my train length, but many would want longer trains than that. And even that wouldn't fit.

Edited June 5, 2020 by Zomboid

[t-b-g]

3 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I used a long Y above, but it's definitely a squeeze. The right-most point is hard up against the end of the board.

 

If it means making the boards 3ft 7ins instead of 3ft 6ins, it would worth it for the improvement in appearance.

 

I have had one more thought. If the point to the loco spur was moved to the right and changed to a LH one, you get a straight run on the siding plus more length.

 

Can people tell how much time I waste over thinking these things!

Edited June 5, 2020 by t-b-g

[Zomboid]

8 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I have had one more thought. If the point to the loco spur was moved to the right and changed to a LH one, you get a straight run on the siding plus more length

I did just that on the Minories that I never completed (most track laid, no trains ever ran, decided to learn guitar instead).

[RJS1977]

52 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

.

 

I have had one more thought. If the point to the loco spur was moved to the right and changed to a LH one, you get a straight run on the siding plus more length.

 

Can people tell how much time I waste over thinking these things!

 

I've often thought that as well!

[RJS1977]

On 04/06/2020 at 09:09, t-b-g said:

 

If you have experience of such an arrangement, can you pass on any tips and does it work well in actual use?

 

I have about 6 different ideas floating around in my head for fiddle yard designs and anything that helps me settle on one will be appreciated!

 

That's the fiddle yard arrangement I use on my 'Aberystwyth' layout - any issues with it have been down to shoddy workmanship on my part rather than issues with the design!

[Pacific231G]

2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Most of the Streamline turnouts are straight from the crossing onwards (the large points are an exception).  There can still be a problem with the swing of long vehicles when a crossover is formed with them as @Pacific231G has written about more than once in connection with Minories (quite possibly on this thread, but there are so many of them!).

 

 

I think that may be in order to get a wide enough platform between the down line and the bay without having to widen the layout.  And such arrangements, while unusual, aren't entirely unknown on the prototype.

It probably was in connection with alternatives to Minories that I was experimenting with. I did look at straight crossovers made from a pair of Peco large radius points and found that, though they were  better than a pair of medium radius points, the improvement wasn't as great as I'd expected. The only reason for the large radius points to be curved beyond the crossing is to end up with the same 12 degree (1 in 5) divergence angle as Peco's other pointwork, which enables quite complex trackwork to be formed from standard items. For a crossover  that's irrelevant so there is probably scope for surgery on a pair of Peco large radius points to make them straight between the crossings which I think are about 10 degrees (1 in 6) As a bonus, shortening the rails there would also enable a reduction in the rather over wide double track "six foot way" .

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

I have had one more thought. If the point to the loco spur was moved to the right and changed to a LH one, you get a straight run on the siding plus more length.

 

Can people tell how much time I waste over thinking these things!

Cyril Freezer had the same thought!  The second version of Minories in 60 Plans for small locations that adds a kickback parcels depot to the original (now 7ft long)  scheme does just that. SP36 is by the way eight feet long so does work with Peco medium radius points The only catch I can see is that almost all light engine movements would require entering the fiddle yard (but those to and from platforms two or three do anyway)

 

Probably not as much time as I am but at least I'm now wasting it with gash points laid out on a board with actual rolling stock rather than sitting in front of the PC. That also enables me to see where the excess throwover with longer carriages really is worst.

(All this does though sometimes seem a bit like we're developing the general as well as special theory of Minories throats )

Edited June 5, 2020 by Pacific231G

[ejstubbs]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

I have had one more thought. If the point to the loco spur was moved to the right and changed to a LH one, you get a straight run on the siding plus more length.

 

I think some people put the signal box in the space created by the curved access to the stabling point - such as in Canons Cross - although CJF's quasi-isometric diagram in the edition of 60 Plans... that I have shows the signal cabin next to the down (arrivals) line.