Theory of General Minories

[JohnR]

Is there a thread about the Theory of Special Minories?

[Budgie]

42 minutes ago, JohnR said:

Is there a thread about the Theory of Special Minories?

 

Wouldn't that be a thread about Paris Bastille?

[Nearholmer]

Which, if you read back near the beginning, is a significant (and interesting) portion of what this thread actually is.

[Harlequin]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I would just say that I am rubbish at keeping any constructional threads for my own modelling going and the thought of having to look at several different threads rather than one doesn't appeal to me.

 

I just thought a communal construction thread might be a bit more sociable, as well as being a bit unusual and likely to be updated more often but if that is not what others want, then I respect that.

 

It's a nice idea in principle. Maybe there's some other solution. I was going to suggest a Minories sub-forum but I can see that deciding what is and is not a Minories layout fit for inclusion could get very contentious...

 

Edited June 7, 2020 by Harlequin

[Pacific231G]

34 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

It's a nice idea in principle. Maybe there's some other solution. I was going to suggest a Minories sub-forum but I can see that deciding what is and is not a Minories layout fit for inclusion could get very contentious...

 

I think you'd have to call it something like Compact Main Line Termini but that would widen too far very  quickly. This thread, whatever we call it, does provide a place to share new and related examples such as Clive Bennett's Hornby Minories and Casterbridge North 

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

deciding what is and is not a Minories layout fit for inclusion could get very contentious...

...again!

[mdvle]

4 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I would just say that I am rubbish at keeping any constructional threads for my own modelling going and the thought of having to look at several different threads rather than one doesn't appeal to me.

 

I just thought a communal construction thread might be a bit more sociable, as well as being a bit unusual and likely to be updated more often but if that is not what others want, then I respect that.

 

The only way to really find out is to try - so if you (or anyone) wants to try and create a communal construction thread start one in the Layouts sections and then post a message here directing anyone interested to that thread.

 

And thus it will live or die depending on what interest there is.

 

[t-b-g]

5 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

The only way to really find out is to try - so if you (or anyone) wants to try and create a communal construction thread start one in the Layouts sections and then post a message here directing anyone interested to that thread.

 

And thus it will live or die depending on what interest there is.

 

 

I have started threads before that have fizzled out, so I just thought I would gauge a response before starting another. I think the lukewarm reception has told me all I need to know.

Several suggestions as to why it may not work and none saying "good idea" tells me enough, so I will let that idea fade away.

 

[Pacific231G]

15 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Cyril's design with a point then a straight virtually halves the throwover compared to a conventional crossover, where you get one carriage going to one side and the next going the same amount in the opposite direction. To me, that is the really clever bit of the plan. So you would have to have a much larger radius to get the same throw. The fact that the Peco points all diverge at the same angle doesn't help either. A shallower divergence is one area where a home made point really does improve things.

 

Definitely and that's probably why we keep coming back to it. The two back to backs right hand turnouts are the one place where that breaks down but it's still vastly better than an equivalent length throat based on straight medium crossovers. The Y substitution seems the best compromise in the same length, at least for my own H0 stock, and actually no worse in terms of throwover than a much longer straight throat using large radius turnouts. ISTR Tom Cunnington telling me that they used B5s for the EM Minories (GN) "tribute" layout but, looking at a video I shot of it, the throwover over the two back to backs (up to P1)  is very marked, even with suburban stock, though trains flow very smoothly through all the other routes. 

[t-b-g]

3 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Definitely and that's probably why we keep coming back to it. The two back to backs right hand turnouts are the one place where that breaks down but it's still vastly better than an equivalent length throat based on straight medium crossovers. The Y substitution seems the best compromise in the same length, at least for my own H0 stock, and actually no worse in terms of throwover than a much longer straight throat using large radius turnouts. ISTR Tom Cunnington telling me that they used B5s for the EM Minories (GN) "tribute" layout but, looking at a video I shot of it, the throwover over the two back to backs (up to P1)  is very marked, even with suburban stock, though trains flow very smoothly through all the other routes. 

 

I did once lay out a version using all Y points on the basis that a Y was shorter than the same radius of curve in a standard point. So a throat made up of all Y points could be done in the same length but with a bigger radius throughout, plus two Y points toe to toe or toe to heel could give a continuous curved run on some routes. I thought it worked quite well and the train coming in doing continuous larger radius curves looked better than the curve, straight, curve, straight of the pure Minories. 

[FoxUnpopuli]

I love the new thread name.

 

I have a potentially really dumb question though...

 

...  I watched the Hornby-Dublo Minories YT vid (and some others from the same person) and I was slightly confused.  Why do trains approach and depart on both up and down lines under the bridge... ?  Is this a normal/authentic operating practice?  I would have thought that unless absolutely necessary, trains 'keep left' both ways - and this actually forms part of the challenge of operating the station.

 

Is this particular case 'rule one' - the operator just playing trains?

[Nearholmer]

I noticed that and guessed that perhaps his fiddle-yard is a bit restricted or something.

 

Super layout though, very ‘period’.

 

Here are three pictures that I took of a TT (actually 00, sorry!) Minories, all done using genuine period materials, at the TCS show two years ago. To my shame, I’ve forgotten the name of the guy who built it.

 

 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Zomboid]

It's not the normal way of operating it. Could be that it's a pair of single lines rather than a double line approach.

[Flying Pig]

53 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Here are three pictures that I took of a TT Minories, all done using genuine period materials, at the TCS show two years ago. To my shame, I’ve forgotten the name of the guy who built it.

 

I notice that while the layout is otherwise a conventional Minories, the main line sneaks offstage as single track.  This will of course reduce the intensity of operation but no doubt makes arranging a ladder of hidden sidings easier.

 

It brought to mind another 3mm Minories that used a single track exit more openly.  On googling, the first hit was on this very thread and in the spirit of General Minories, here's a wormhole:

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/60091-theory-of-general-minories/&do=findComment&comment=1602078

 

[Metropolitan H]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I noticed that and guessed that perhaps his fiddle-yard is a bit restricted or something.

 

Super layout though, very ‘period’.

 

Here are three pictures that I took of a TT Minories, all done using genuine period materials, at the TCS show two years ago. To my shame, I’ve forgotten the name of the guy who built it.

 

 

Hate to contradict you, but my memory says it was "OO" - not TT - with Wrenn Fibre sleepered track and "Universal" points.  But I can't remember the name either!

 

That was a good exhibition, pity we can't go to one this year!

 

Regards

Chris H

[Nearholmer]

Definitely Wrenn track, but they made both gauges, and I was havering between TT and 00, but I think it was TT.

 

Can you tell for certain from this?

 

 

[Nearholmer]

STOP PRESS: Its is 00.

 

"Early post war 00 Gauge was displayed by David Holt, a fully scenic layout using materials available to modellers in the 50's,  I was impressed with a Stewart Reidpath LMS 4F and also spotted a lovely Hamblings Knat Saddle Tank in original Southern Green."

 

There are a couple more photos on the TCS website.

 

Knat is usually spelt Gnat!

 

 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Pacific231G]

2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I notice that while the layout is otherwise a conventional Minories, the main line sneaks offstage as single track.  This will of course reduce the intensity of operation but no doubt makes arranging a ladder of hidden sidings easier.

 

It brought to mind another 3mm Minories that used a single track exit more openly.  On googling, the first hit was on this very thread and in the spirit of General Minories, here's a wormhole:

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/60091-theory-of-general-minories/&do=findComment&comment=1602078

 

It was my post and photos but when I've seen the layout in operation  I've not been able to get my head round where their design had gone wrong as their throat was still four points lengths long with a long gap between the two pairs of points. They said it was to get a five coach train in and if the entry point to the loco spur became platform one instead then you could get a longer train in to that platform at the expense of it only having access to what is  normally the down line.

While operating Brian Thomas' Newford we had a points failure on the diverging route of the points at the end of platform one. The effect of that was that everything had to use the two back to back points effectively making it a single track throat. The effect of that on its operation was precisely nothing at all.

 

The thought that's been bugging me is that, apart from simultaneous in and out movements, which I've hardly  ever seen on any Minories, if you removed the down line and its associated pointwork you could carry out all the same operations in terms of train movements and you'd only need two points plus one for the loco spur. It wouldn't have the same atmosphere of a bustling city terminus but  I've seen that terminus in operation and its operaton could be quite intense and fascinating- it was called Fort William! (the original one)

 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Pacific231G

[FoxUnpopuli]

Clever live frog setup, would work well on something like Z or T gauge (if it doesn't already.)

[Pacific231G]

1 minute ago, FoxUnpopuli said:

Clever live frog setup, would work well on something like Z or T gauge (if it doesn't already.)

You could use P87 on those points and the checkrails are purely cosmetic.

Wrenn (and others) described It as "universal" as the closing frogs mean that, so long as the gauge was 16.5 (or 12 in the case of TT) anyone's wheels would run through it . In those days manufacturers were notoriously proprietary in their wheel standards, flange widths, back to backs etc.  Hornby-Dublo, Trix, Tri-ang and BRMSB were barely on the same planet and I think for TT there were products around from Tri-ang but also Rokal with different wheel standards.

Though John Ahern had upgraded most of the main ones, quite a lot of points on the Madder Valley still have closing frogs so when he first built it he probably faced the same problem with inconsistent wheelsets.

[Flying Pig]

21 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

The thought that's been bugging me is that, apart from simultaneous in and out movements, which I've hardly  ever seen on any Minories, if you removed the down line and its associated pointwork you could carry out all the same operations in terms of train movements and you'd only need two points plus one for the loco spur. It wouldn't have the same atmosphere of a bustling city terminus but  I've seen that terminus in operation and its operaton could be quite intense and fascinating- it was called Fort William! (the original one)

 

The atmosphere is probably worth the cost of a couple of points.  Fort William is not infrequently suggested as a prototype, but it isn't representative of the majority of similar sized stations.  Minories pulls off the trick of looking typical.

[Nearholmer]

FoxUnpopuli

 

If you are prepared to spend a long time wading through my thread (see below), somewhere I've included a copy of an article by Ahern describing a very quick and simple way of making them.

 

If you look at old-style tinplate track, that uses an even simpler arrangement to avoid having a crossing-nose altogether, but is a bit too obvious.

 

K

[Izzy]

33 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

 

 

The thought that's been bugging me is that, apart from simultaneous in and out movements, which I've hardly  ever seen on any Minories, if you removed the down line and its associated pointwork you could carry out all the same operations in terms of train movements and you'd only need two points plus one for the loco spur. It wouldn't have the same atmosphere of a bustling city terminus but  I've seen that terminus in operation and its operaton could be quite intense and fascinating- it was called Fort William! (the original one)

 

 

I think one of the main appeals to many of Minories is that it gives the impression of a busy small terminus thanks to the track design yet can be fitted into a small space for home use by the lone modeller. As such it's not easy to try and have more than one train moving at the same time and especially under DC would need cab control. The fiddle would also have to be twin tracked which also isn't easy, or perhaps totally practicable in a narrow width.  Personally I think the simultaneous operation aspect was probably more concept than reality.

 

Izzy

 

 

[Harlequin]

15 minutes ago, Izzy said:

 

I think one of the main appeals to many of Minories is that it gives the impression of a busy small terminus thanks to the track design yet can be fitted into a small space for home use by the lone modeller. As such it's not easy to try and have more than one train moving at the same time and especially under DC would need cab control. The fiddle would also have to be twin tracked which also isn't easy, or perhaps totally practicable in a narrow width.  Personally I think the simultaneous operation aspect was probably more concept than reality.

 

Izzy

 

 

This was my take on a double-track fiddle yard for Minories that folds up into the same volume as the folded Minories:

 

[RJS1977]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I noticed that and guessed that perhaps his fiddle-yard is a bit restricted or something.

 

 

 

I was only thinking the other day that the alignment of the exit roads on Minories restricts options for the fiddle yard somewhat if the layout is against a wall. The back line can only be fed by one line on a traverser, and the front line by two. Any fan of tracks involving pointwork (including the Denny pattern mentioned a few pages ago) requires another kink in the front track to make room for the rear track to fan out. Realistically the only pattern of fiddle yard operation that I could see being used in these circumstances is the cassette type, which hadn't been invented when Cyril designed the layout.

 

However if the layout was flipped or rotated so that the main lines kink towards the front rather than the rear, a traverser would be a more practical option.