Theory of General Minories

[Will Crompton]

As noted above some of CJ Freezers versions of Minories have a kick back siding or sidings. In my copy  (2005 impression) of '60 plans for small locations' plan SP35 has a single siding coming off platform 3. Plan SP36 has two kickback sidings coming off a headshunt parallel to platform 3. He suggested the two sidings could be used for van traffic (steam era) or parcels (diesel era). How prototypical is such a kick back siding arrangement in an urban terminus?

 

I can see such an arrangement would add some shunting interest and I've seen it used in some urban termini layouts such as Walford Town (BRM June 2016). I sometimes daydream about doing a Minories set in the 1970s as I share that common fascination for the parcels trains of that period and can see how one could mix parcels and passenger trains in such set up. However from my hazy memories of the period and reading parcels related threads here I can't recall any kickback to parcels depot prototypes.

 

One possibility I wondered about was rather than having a kick back to a parcels depot, having two kick back sidings off platform 3 used as carriage sidings for parcels or passenger stock. They would be about half the length of the platform 3 track. I imagined this sort of scenario. Early morning, first parcels train of the day pulls into platform 3 and is unloaded. Then the train engine pushes half the stock into one siding, this half of the stock is uncoupled and the train engine then moves the remaing half into the second siding. Later in the day the station pilot (08) shuffles the stock a la tuning fork layouts, pulls the assembled train back into platform 3. A train engine enters from stage right and departs with the parcels train. Is this idea completely unprototypical/contrived/barking mad?

 

Three kickback sidings would give one a kind of parcels/carriage sidings Inglenook but I think this would overload the scene - just my preference but I think with Minories, less is more.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

2 hours ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

A home for Ratio four wheelers, or Hattons Generics....

My Ratio 4 wheeler’s won’t navigate Setrack reverse curves - I’ve tried before.  I did shorten the length of the buffers but there’s not enough give in the couplings for Setrack reverse curves (I used the couplings in the kits - others might be more successful).
 

I can get the 4 wheelers round a steady second radius oval, very slowly.  I’m sure Hattons will ensure their generic models can do the job - presumably without the large tension lock couplings that prevent buffer locking.  I know I’ll be tempted when they appear!

[ejstubbs]

1 hour ago, Will Crompton said:

In my copy  (2005 impression) of '60 plans for small locations' plan ... SP36 has two kickback sidings coming off a headshunt parallel to platform 3.

 

I note that that plan also has the straight run in to the longer loco stabling siding as suggested by t-b-g the other day.

[FoxUnpopuli]

Minories Colonel:

 

 

Close up of the throat:

 

 

Considered for my Shed layout: 

Not entirely in the spirit of the original, but a throat is a throat and Minories is a nice one. 

[Izzy]

I'm a great believer in the less is more way of thinking with a lot of things in life, but particularly with regard to layouts. The video link t-b-g posted really sums it up for me. All a bigger layout would provide is greater amounts of stock being moved around, the actual moves would be mostly just the same. And I think I would be correct in saying that it was this kind of situation that Minories was originally meant for, a time when stock was not so easily obtained for many with regard to both cost and availability, factors that don't have such an impact these days, well not at present, although times could well be changing again with current circumstances.

 

With regard to the reverse curve look of Minories I did look at flipping the exit section when I was searching for a town/city terminus to make in 2mm/2FS and a crude copy is below. It's not to any scale as regards the platform lengths etc, just a proof of concept, and that all the points were B6's. A6's would help loose some length as would other adjustments. Platform one was considered to be just an arrival or parcels road, with the headshunt being used to move the stock to 2 for exit. It might give someone thoughts with no particular reverse curves just the larger radius entry/exit lines.

 

 

Izzy

[t-b-g]

9 minutes ago, Izzy said:

I'm a great believer in the less is more way of thinking with a lot of things in life, but particularly with regard to layouts. The video link t-b-g posted really sums it up for me. All a bigger layout would provide is greater amounts of stock being moved around, the actual moves would be mostly just the same. And I think I would be correct in saying that it was this kind of situation that Minories was originally meant for, a time when stock was not so easily obtained for many with regard to both cost and availability, factors that don't have such an impact these days, well not at present, although times could well be changing again with current circumstances.

 

With regard to the reverse curve look of Minories I did look at flipping the exit section when I was searching for a town/city terminus to make in 2mm/2FS and a crude copy is below. It's not to any scale as regards the platform lengths etc, just a proof of concept, and that all the points were B6's. A6's would help loose some length as would other adjustments. Platform one was considered to be just an arrival or parcels road, with the headshunt being used to move the stock to 2 for exit. It might give someone thoughts with no particular reverse curves just the larger radius entry/exit lines.

 

 

Izzy

 

That has a really nice flow to it. I see you have swapped the crossovers so the first one coming in is a facing rather than a trailing. I tried that on a number of my designs but never managed anything as elegant as that.

 

The only possible down side that I can see is that if your scenic section starts where the first point is, as it does in many plans that have appeared on the thread, then the headshunt would be quite short. So to get a decent length you either need a length of visible plain track before the first point or you could extend the headshunt in front of the fiddle yard.

 

Again, not a pure Minories but a very interesting variation that would look really nice as a model.

 

That may well be my favourite plan yet!  

[Clive Mortimore]

5 hours ago, t-b-g said:

Just going back through the thread, I notice that I haven't posted my latest layout on this thread, although it has appeared elsewhere. Something a bit like it appears in my planning scribbles from a page or two back.

 

Again, inspired by but not a copy of Minories.

 

My brief was to create a layout in 8ft, with realistic radius point, capable of handling a 4-6-0 and 5 short bogie carriages. The only way I could do this is to limit the length of the station pointwork to two points.

 

I struggled for a while but then on a visit to a show I saw a layout that had done just that effectively. I pinched the core of their design and altered it to suit my requirements. I don't know if it should be on a Minories thread at all but it could be almost a "Baby Minories"!

 

 

The LH track is the loco spur, then the two main lines.The LH and the two middle roads are platforms and the LH road is for parcels, horses, vans etc.

 

Trains can arrive in Pl 1 or 2 and can depart from 2 or 3. Simultaneous moves can be an arrival in 1 and a departure from 2 or an arrival in 2 and a departure from 3. Stock arriving in 1 has to be shunted to 2, where it can go out from. Arrivals in 2 can either go straight back out or get shunted to 3 or to the loading dock.

 

It is to be pre-grouping, based on the Sheffield District Railway, which never had its own station in Sheffield (until now). The line would have been worked by the Midland, the GCR (service to Barnsley)  the LD&ECR (who shared the passenger workings to Langwith Junction with the Midland) and could also serve GNR trains from Doncaster.

 

I am building it to the old Manchester EM standards as I have obtained a number of carriages and wagons that belonged to Sid Stubbs and which are too good to stay in boxes and not run!

 

 

Hi Tony

 

A full Minories is achievable in 8 ft with 1 in 7 (or was it 1 in 8) points. Just use a bit of imagination.

From my aborted Cripplegate layout that then morphed into Sheffield Exchange Mk1 with Peco points

 

Sheffield Exchange Mk1

 

 

[Clive Mortimore]

A few more of the point work for Cripplegate.

 

 

[t-b-g]

39 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Tony

 

A full Minories is achievable in 8 ft with 1 in 7 (or was it 1 in 8) points. Just use a bit of imagination.

From my aborted Cripplegate layout that then morphed into Sheffield Exchange Mk1 with Peco points

 

Sheffield Exchange Mk1

 

 

 

Hello Clive. I saw those on another thread and they are very impressive. Such points are within my capability but it was something about the layout that I saw at the show that won me over. A double track terminus with three platforms, a loco spur and a loading dock and all done with just 5 conventional points.

 

It had an elegant simplicity that just struck a chord with me. They were having electrical problems when I saw it so very little was running but in my mind, all the possible movements were being worked out and I decided it was more than enough to entertain me for a weekend exhibition!

 

Most people would use more than that number on a branch terminus yet these people had built a convincing secondary main line terminus.

 

I had looked more than once at copying the station throat on Buckingham but by cutting down the number of platforms and other roads, it didn't look right.

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Tony

 

I am liking this tread as it is showing people there are numerous ways of achieving a similar result and most importantly doing some railway modelling and enjoying the hobby.

[t-b-g]

5 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Tony

 

I am liking this tread as it is showing people there are numerous ways of achieving a similar result and most importantly doing some railway modelling and enjoying the hobby.

 

Me too for exactly the same reasons. There are some really good ideas being put forward and I like nicking good ideas!

[john new]

If anyone has built it with the loco spur side as the main viewing option (rather  than the usual CJF style with it at the back) it would be useful to see the results.

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

That has a really nice flow to it. I see you have swapped the crossovers so the first one coming in is a facing rather than a trailing. I tried that on a number of my designs but never managed anything as elegant as that.

 

The only possible down side that I can see is that if your scenic section starts where the first point is, as it does in many plans that have appeared on the thread, then the headshunt would be quite short. So to get a decent length you either need a length of visible plain track before the first point or you could extend the headshunt in front of the fiddle yard.

 

Again, not a pure Minories but a very interesting variation that would look really nice as a model.

 

That may well be my favourite plan yet!  

 

Pleased you like it. I thought I would throw it into the mix following your comments in an earlier post that you thought you had one more Minories type layout in you. I don't know if you meant in EM or 7mm but of course as the gauge and scale alters so does what matters most as you almost certainly know.

 

At 1.5m in 2mm it would be quite large as it stands in either of the bigger scales, but as you say where the exit would be can easily be altered to suit particular needs, as can the platform lengths.

 

My aim was to try and replicate the brilliant and simple approach CJF applied of just using standard points, the key advantage besides the ease of trackmaking being simple electrickery, and especially when plain DC was used, the way the track could be easily partitioned into sections. I use DCC mainly for the advantages it offers in this respect, which are most beneficial with small layouts more than anything else.

 

Izzy

[Joseph_Pestell]

3 minutes ago, john new said:

If anyone has built it with the loco spur side as the main viewing option (rather  than the usual CJF style with it at the back) it would be useful to see the results.

 

In some of his later versions of Minories, CJF put it on a viaduct rather than in a cutting - a better arrangement in my opinion. No problem with a scenic break in a city context where a tall building can be used as a view blocker.

 

Certainly no reason why that version should not be presented with the loco spur at the front.

[Clive Mortimore]

9 minutes ago, john new said:

If anyone has built it with the loco spur side as the main viewing option (rather  than the usual CJF style with it at the back) it would be useful to see the results.

Hi John

 

I did with Sheff Ex Mk1. But I never finished the scenery.

[john new]

3 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

In some of his later versions of Minories, CJF put it on a viaduct rather than in a cutting - a better arrangement in my opinion. No problem with a scenic break in a city context where a tall building can be used as a view blocker.

 

Certainly no reason why that version should not be presented with the loco spur at the front.

Agree, it is just that I don't recall seeing any pictures of a Minories done with the loco spur side to the front and was curious.

 

[Pacific231G]

17 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I really don't know what we are all messing about for. The definitive Minories has been built.

 

 

We can all pack up and go home.

 

I think it is telling that the kick back siding only sees use for a P.Way train. As I said earlier, shunting in there is hardly convenient and I think I prefer the version without the kick back at all. I have to say that even with the LH/RH combination, those throw overs look horrible!

I raher enjoyed watching Clive Bennett's videos and he's clearly enjoyed bulding and running his version of Minories. I couldn't thoughhelp thinking that he could have got far longer trains into his  8 ft total length as the whole throat, using small radius Streamline, requires less than thirty inches. It was interesting to see what inspiration he took from the original. plan but you're quite right about the 'orrible throwovers.  

 

As it's a rainy day I've spent most of it trying to get the minimum throwover in the shortest possible throat having fun shunting a variety of carriages around*.

I decided to approach this scientifically so tried out several permutation with pairs of examples of the different stock I'm lintending to use and carefully noted the results across each route. 

The best I've come up with so far is this with points in the main throat from left to right (MMYL)  .

(This repesents a scenic length of 1.5m with an option to extend and the grid is 25cms

I've had to use one long turnout at the end of the throat which adds 1.7" to its total length but it's  still just three feet long  so fits comfortably onto a metre long baseboard. The combination of a large radius  Y (which is the same length as a medium radius left or right) and then two mediums (from left to right the order is MMYL) just avoided buffer locking on my 10" and 10.5" long coaches though a set of long DEV Inoxes 11 inches long is still challenged.

The cost of using the Y is that the first crossover is now also an immediate reverse curve but at five foot rather than three foot radius so I'm only getting a 5mm throwover which is barely more than that from a simple medium radius turnout . The reverse curve between the inbound (up) main and platform 1 is still the most critical but the maximum throwover with all but the very longest carrriages there was still only 4- 5mm compared with the 7-10 mm I was getting on that route with the medium radus left and right hand points in the normal Minories formation.  

The other advantage of using the Y is that the platform roads are not thrown as far forward as with the standard Minories throat while platforms 1 & 2 are angled at 6 degrees so just need a simple curve to straighten them as does platform 3 via another large radius Y. 

 

Once I've finished testing this I want to look again at the plan that Phil came up with for me a few years ago but I do need the three platform roads to end up square and that used two large radius turnouts in the throat which may take it just out of my limits- the odd couple of inches really may be critical . 

 

*I think the reason why buffer locking (or apparent buffer locking as I use Kadees) may be more critical for me is because I'm working in H0. In 1:87 scale the typically longer European carriages , are about the same length as British ones in 1:76 scale but buffers and corridor connections are correspondingly smaller and narrower so what might be a slight divergence in OO can be half the width of the concertina in the smaller scale. 

 

 

 

 

[t-b-g]

26 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I raher enjoyed watching Clive Bennett's videos and he's clearly enjoyed bulding and running his version of Minories. I couldn't thoughhelp thinking that he could have got far longer trains into his  8 ft total length as the whole throat, using small radius Streamline, requires less than thirty inches. It was interesting to see what inspiration he took from the original. plan but you're quite right about the 'orrible throwovers.  

 

As it's a rainy day I've spent most of it trying to get the minimum throwover in the shortest possible throat having fun shunting a variety of carriages around*.

I decided to approach this scientifically so tried out several permutation with pairs of examples of the different stock I'm lintending to use and carefully noted the results across each route. 

The best I've come up with so far is this with points in the main throat from left to right (MMYL)  .

(This repesents a scenic length of 1.5m with an option to extend and the grid is 25cms

I've had to use one long turnout at the end of the throat which adds 1.7" to its total length but it's  still just three feet long  so fits comfortably onto a metre long baseboard. The combination of a large radius  Y (which is the same length as a medium radius left or right) and then two mediums (from left to right the order is MMYL) just avoided buffer locking on my 10" and 10.5" long coaches though a set of long DEV Inoxes 11 inches long is still challenged.

The cost of using the Y is that the first crossover is now also an immediate reverse curve but at five foot rather than three foot radius so I'm only getting a 5mm throwover which is barely more than that from a simple medium radius turnout . The reverse curve between the inbound (up) main and platform 1 is still the most critical but the maximum throwover with all but the very longest carrriages there was still only 4- 5mm compared with the 7-10 mm I was getting on that route with the medium radus left and right hand points in the normal Minories formation.  

The other advantage of using the Y is that the platform roads are not thrown as far forward as with the standard Minories throat while platforms 1 & 2 are angled at 6 degrees so just need a simple curve to straighten them as does platform 3 via another large radius Y. 

 

Once I've finished testing this I want to look again at the plan that Phil came up with for me a few years ago but I do need the three platform roads to end up square and that used two large radius turnouts in the throat which may take it just out of my limits- the odd couple of inches really may be critical . 

 

*I think the reason why buffer locking (or apparent buffer locking as I use Kadees) may be more critical for me is because I'm working in H0. In 1:87 scale the typically longer European carriages , are about the same length as British ones in 1:76 scale but buffers and corridor connections are correspondingly smaller and narrower so what might be a slight divergence in OO can be half the width of the concertina in the smaller scale. 

 

 

 

 

 

I really enjoyed the video too. It captures the era when the plan was drawn. The vast majority of people would have been using Hornby Dublo locos and stock. An N2 and a couple of lithographed suburban carriages might have been just the train Cyril had in mind when he drew it. In many respects, he has possibly captured the true spirit of Cyril Freezer's plan in a way that all our efforts to turn it into a layout more acceptable to the modern eye do not.

 

In the mid 1960s, I was "helping" Dad build layouts with Bilteezi, Airfix and Superquick buildings and there was an innocence and fun about them that the video recreates beautifully. Apart from the EMU, which we never had (We had the Triang DMU instead) I could recreate most of those trains from the big trunk in the loft.

 

Would I want to build one like it now? I don't think so. I like to think I have improved my knowledge of the real thing and my skills and abilities as a modeller but it was still a lovely reminder of happy times.

 

Your plan looks good. Do you need to swap the up and down lines for your continental prototypes? Not that it matters much when you have the "full Minories" and can arrive and depart from any line, I was just curious! I must admit, my layout planning is very much still in feet, so when we are talking metres and H0, I find it tricky to picture it in my head. I see you happily mix metric and imperial! 

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

I really enjoyed the video too. It captures the era when the plan was drawn. The vast majority of people would have been using Hornby Dublo locos and stock. An N2 and a couple of lithographed suburban carriages might have been just the train Cyril had in mind when he drew it. In many respects, he has possibly captured the true spirit of Cyril Freezer's plan in a way that all our efforts to turn it into a layout more acceptable to the modern eye do not.

 

Your plan looks good. Do you need to swap the up and down lines for your continental prototypes? Not that it matters much when you have the "full Minories" and can arrive and depart from any line, I was just curious! I must admit, my layout planning is very much still in feet, so when we are talking metres and H0, I find it tricky to picture it in my head. I see you happily mix metric and imperial! 

Thanks Tony. No I don't need to swap; Metros and trams apart, French trains  (except in the formerly German Alsace) run on the left as do a surprising number of other European countries.

I think the trains Cyril had in mind were the TT-3 Jinty and suburban coaches that were launched with the new "scale" by Tri-ang the month before. I've just dug out the MRC Bulletin for 9/10 2006 where, in his "Origin of Minories"  introduction to Tom Cunnington's EM plan for Minories (GN), Cyril says that "The original scheme was for TT gauge, but most copies have been in 4mm or 7mm scale. I've lost count of the number of people who have come up to me at shows and thanked me for the design"  

From my experinments today (Saturday), these are the throwovers in the worst case, the back to back points where I've used a Y and a right hand medium.

This is probably as good as I can get in the available length without opting for a single track throat.

 

Rivarossi DEV Inox longue (11.5" OB)

 

Lima DEV AO court (short) (10.5" OB)

 

Rivarossi CIWL Pullman and Wagon Restaurant (10.5" OB)

 

 

Modified Minories throat

 

I shall leave this lot up overnight and see what I think of it in the morning!

Edited June 7, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

No I don't need to swap; Metros and trams apart, French trains  (except in the formerly German Alsace) run on the left

 

For the land of the voiture sans permis, that's a disappointingly dull and risk averse approach.

[St Enodoc]

12 hours ago, Izzy said:

I'm a great believer in the less is more way of thinking with a lot of things in life, but particularly with regard to layouts. The video link t-b-g posted really sums it up for me. All a bigger layout would provide is greater amounts of stock being moved around, the actual moves would be mostly just the same. And I think I would be correct in saying that it was this kind of situation that Minories was originally meant for, a time when stock was not so easily obtained for many with regard to both cost and availability, factors that don't have such an impact these days, well not at present, although times could well be changing again with current circumstances.

 

With regard to the reverse curve look of Minories I did look at flipping the exit section when I was searching for a town/city terminus to make in 2mm/2FS and a crude copy is below. It's not to any scale as regards the platform lengths etc, just a proof of concept, and that all the points were B6's. A6's would help loose some length as would other adjustments. Platform one was considered to be just an arrival or parcels road, with the headshunt being used to move the stock to 2 for exit. It might give someone thoughts with no particular reverse curves just the larger radius entry/exit lines.

 

 

Izzy

 

11 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

That has a really nice flow to it. I see you have swapped the crossovers so the first one coming in is a facing rather than a trailing. I tried that on a number of my designs but never managed anything as elegant as that.

 

The only possible down side that I can see is that if your scenic section starts where the first point is, as it does in many plans that have appeared on the thread, then the headshunt would be quite short. So to get a decent length you either need a length of visible plain track before the first point or you could extend the headshunt in front of the fiddle yard.

 

Again, not a pure Minories but a very interesting variation that would look really nice as a model.

 

That may well be my favourite plan yet!  

Apart from the reversed crossovers, which are a great idea, that was what I was trying to describe earlier with the platforms and main lines forming a shallow V. I like this very much.

[Harlequin]

No matter how final you think a plan is, if you leave it long enough you'll be able to find improvements!

 

This was my previous SP35 Minories essay (V19):

 

But, as highlighted, the top elbow curve seems a bit too sharp and there's a small radius turnout in the reverse curve into P1. I'm sure this was pointed out before but for whatever reason it remained in the design.

 

I realised that I could fix these problems and one or two other minor details like this (V20a):

 

The elbow is smoother, the crossovers are all Medium (although this is still not ideal for bogie stock as David has demonstrated) and I have banished one Small turnout from the design. The angles and small curves needed to achieve this are quite subtle!

 

Then I realised that the straight Medium at the end of P1 looked rather ugly amongst the curves all around it and wondered if a curved turnout might improve the flow (V20b):

 

The angles and curves in this one are fiendish and the elbow curve is a bit tighter again but I feel the inbound and outbound tracks flow together much better.

 

Edited June 7, 2020 by Harlequin

[Chimer]

Phil, I suppose you've tried replacing the two points left in blue on the last version with a curved right (immediately below the curved left) and a medium right?  Seems to work quite well and takes out the wiggle into the bottom platform ….

[Zomboid]

Wouldn't that be too long for the folding board?

[Harlequin]

26 minutes ago, Chimer said:

Phil, I suppose you've tried replacing the two points left in blue on the last version with a curved right (immediately below the curved left) and a medium right?  Seems to work quite well and takes out the wiggle into the bottom platform ….

 

It might be nice but there's not enough room I'm afraid. There's a baseboard joint at 3ft 6in, indicated by the thin white line.