Jump to content
 

Theory of General Minories


Mike W2
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
26 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

IMO, at some point(!) the reduction in real operating potential, and the artificiality tamp-up to a degree that parents a thing being “a proper layout” and turns it into “ a diorama with moving bits”. I get pretty twitchy once points that ought to be part of the station get replaced by stuff happening in the fiddle-yard, for instance.

 

Very old-fashioned attitude, I know, and I don’t condemn “bitsa” layouts, but they aren’t my mug of coffee (“You’ll have to imagine the handle - it’s beyond the over bridge.”)

 

I am just the same. I don't understand why but seeing a train go off scene on one track and come back on scene on a different one just doesn't work. My brain just doesn't compute! It is also very labour intensive unless automated, which is a complication too far for me. It is the "go to fiddle yard, slide traverser/move cassette return to station" that accompanies almost every move. My aim has always been to do as little as possible in the fiddle yard.

 

I did once draw up a plan that had a traverser with a crossover and a point to the goods yard built in to two of the roads, so that once the train was in the station, it could be operated in a conventional fashion. It never got built, like around 99% of my layout plans, so I never found out if the arrangement satisfied me or not!

 

I see the idea of a loco release traverser under an overall hidden roof was mentioned. I also came up with that one independently but decided that a roof long enough to hide the traverser completely would also hide trains standing in the station more than I wanted. I drew a version with the roof covering two of the platforms and the third platform outside the roof along the front, which sort of worked visually. The GCR had some nice little overall roof stations, like Grimsby, which would justify such a plan.

 

I was just deciding between the overall roof and the mini Minories when I saw a model very similar to the mini Minories, which decided me in favour of that design. I may yet build the overall roof version as I still fancy the "scenic fiddle yard" idea and that would work well. What such a design would benefit from is somewhere to do a bit of shunting, preferably without interfering with the trains running.  That way, at a show, you can keep something moving to entertain viewers while a second operator is getting a train ready to depart at the other end. Any layout like this really needs a variety of different ways you can operate it to make it interesting over any more than a short time. 

 

I have a design in my head, so maybe, one day......    

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

IMO, at some point(!) the reduction in real operating potential, and the artificiality tamp-up to a degree that parents a thing being “a proper layout” and turns it into “ a diorama with moving bits”. I get pretty twitchy once points that ought to be part of the station get replaced by stuff happening in the fiddle-yard, for instance.

 

Very old-fashioned attitude, I know, and I don’t condemn “bitsa” layouts, but they aren’t my mug of coffee (“You’ll have to imagine the handle - it’s beyond the over bridge.”)

I rather feel the same way Kevin. It's fine to entertain the public with just the tip of the operational iceberg but my layouts are to entertain me and other operators. I can accept that the trains are really coming and going to and from a fiddle yard the other side of the bridge so long as I can carry out all the operations in full that they'd undertake when actually within the station limits (off stage MPD and carriage sidings are fine)

 

The idea I've been toying with for years (while actually building two entirely different and far smaller layouts) is to have two "bitsa" scenes, one the throat and the other the platform ends, so getting all the operation of a complete terminus but with the middle bit of each, far-too-long-for-a-practical-layout, train missed out. Whether those scenes are formally separated by being in  lightboxes or simply by judicious use of scene blockers is a moot point.

 

What counts is how much I can abstract from that middle bit of each train and still believe that it is what it purports to be. The 4m length I have available for everything as a shelf layout is right on the edge of that suspension of disbelief. Five coaches including the diner, sleeper or postal that gets added to or subtracted from a train would be fine but I'm just short of that. I can accept a four coach train of plain carriages and they fit very easily,  but, when the main part has to go down to three carriages it just feels a bit silly (a partial answer is probably for the overnight mail train to be mostly postales with just one or two carriages for passengers who don't mind being awoken from their fitful sleep every hour or so while the posties noisily load and unload their bags-I'm sure some of you are also old enough to remember such night voyages.

 

Were I just running suburban or local stopping trains à la the original Minories  I'd have no problem, the carriages are shorter and five or even six coach trains hauied by tank loco would be easy but I really want the drama and excitement of a main line terminus with its voitures lits, wagons restaurant, couchettes, and TPOs. Wthout that I might as well just build a slightly larger BLT and include the daily three or four through carriages to Paris (or a Francified version of my favourite British terminus- sadly no longer with us - as La Bastide Guillaume.

 

Even with a double track station and some goods facilities I suspect that it will be the operational pattern of Ft. William that I'll follow for passenger trains. Reversing termini, especially if the train going forward is a bit different from that which arrived, do give a lot of bang for one's buck.

Edited by Pacific231G
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Have you seen Northroader’s run-round traverser? That manages to be in full view and invisible at the same time, by using the Moor Street trick of sliding partly under the platforms.

 

I have and I am not against the idea at all. I was just concerned at making the roof big enough to hide a loco that was moving sideways under the roof. The appearance f the track itself I could easily accept. Mine would have had three tracks, all ballasted and painted t look like normal track. One would be under the platform on one side.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/06/2020 at 18:53, t-b-g said:

 

I think we are both of a similar mind, that if we had more length, we would increase train length rather than try to add a second station.

 

I look forward to seeing yours develop. Very few non UK railways appeal to me but those French designs have a certain look about them that overcomes any prejudice I may have!

The catch is that there is a rival plan to Minories and this is it.

529084015_falseDV4mv3.jpg.85d94d789e4b79058c3eb25973f07987.jpg

It's what I call a faux double track but a number of double track lines in France were singled during the war and remained that way with more modern signalling.  What was the outbound main line is now just a loco layover track or possibly a headshunt for  manoeuvers betweenplatform one and the bay. An extra trailing crossoverwould restore it to double track but that's not necessary for its operation or signalling. 

It doesn't quite have the same compact city terminus fees as Minories and its derivatives but does allow for longer trains. This mockup occupies the same two metres on my planning board and already handles longer trains than my 2.5m Minories mock  up. 

479609390_falseDVmockupmirror.jpg.61098929b53ceb1dc1ea7c417da66976.jpg

For anyone who knows their classic layouts this is actually developed from John Charman's Charford and I suspect that was derived in turn from Fort William

 

Edited by Pacific231G
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Back on the idea of connecting Minories to another terminus with each acting as the fiddle yard for the other...

 

Here is a drawing of a whole system:

1436975511_MIS4c.png.b218f564f30348ff7013d29615eb805d.png

 

(I improved my version of Seironim slightly to have smoother curves and to fold in the middle.)

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

What you've got there are two Terminus-FY layouts to be built by two different people for home operation, brought together (without their home FYs) to provide a really intensive and "what (tf) happened there?" exhibition layout.  Provided the two individuals are happy with Minories and Seironim, it's a winner!  For one person, doing the whole thing at home - not sure at all. 

  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

It's fine to entertain the public with just the tip of the operational iceberg but my layouts are to entertain me and other operators.

And there's the rub. It's (almost) axiomatic that a good operators' layout rarely makes a good exhibition layout and vice versa.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chimer said:

What you've got there are two Terminus-FY layouts to be built by two different people for home operation, brought together (without their home FYs) to provide a really intensive and "what (tf) happened there?" exhibition layout.  Provided the two individuals are happy with Minories and Seironim, it's a winner!  For one person, doing the whole thing at home - not sure at all. 

 

One of the other threads on here in the recent past had the person wanted to replace the fiddle yard with a station or other scenic part - they didn't want an off scene fiddle yard.

 

This suits this - think of it U shaped in a shed where they can run trains back and forth, and they can use the intermediate fiddleyard if they want or simply connect the 2 terminals with track.

 

Yes, it doesn't appeal to those of us more interested in attempting to recreate the real thing - but for many others this will suit them perfectly - perhaps even with one track in each terminal as an optional through track with a lift out section past a doorway to allow roundy operation.

 

So this could well be useful to point people to in the future for an idea for their simple operate trains for fun layout.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mdvle said:

Yes, it doesn't appeal to those of us more interested in attempting to recreate the real thing -

I'd have said there's an awful lot of "real thing" possibilities that could be enjoyed with such a layout. You can recreate the operating practises at two quite different termini, you can send trains off to other destinations and return them from there, and the operation of one doesn't need to have much have an impact on the other.

 

It does require a significant compromise on train length, but I don't see many other major compromises to recreating the real thing. Seironim is a lot more like the real thing than an undecorated traverser, for one thing. It would drive a single operator mad to try and run it anywhere near capacity though.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Back on the idea of connecting Minories to another terminus with each acting as the fiddle yard for the other...

 

Here is a drawing of a whole system:

1436975511_MIS4c.png.b218f564f30348ff7013d29615eb805d.png

 

(I improved my version of Seironim slightly to have smoother curves and to fold in the middle.)

 

It would increase the overall width slightly, but I would make the bypass track on the Interstitial long enough for a loco lift so it can perform a duty as a loco spur without locos having to actually sit there, and they could be turned easily too.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

And there's the rub. It's (almost) axiomatic that a good operators' layout rarely makes a good exhibition layout and vice versa.

 

Over my 40 plus years involvement with the hobby, exhibiting layouts or going to shows, I can recall a tiny number of exhibition layouts that people also enjoy operating at home. I have been lucky to visit a number of super home based layouts that were great to operate but didn't go to shows.

 

So you are right, it is a very difficult ask to have a layout that fulfils both roles well. One of my very limited ambitions in the hobby has been to do just that and I think that Ken Hill and I did manage it with Narrow Road. 

 

At a show, we had 8 operators, 6 on the layout and 2 spares. It was a terminus to fiddle yard, double track, with 4 platforms, a goods yard and a loco shed. In a one hour sequence, we could run almost 60 trains in and out plus shunting and light engine moves to and from the shed. It was quite a hit at shows and we did most of the top shows in the country.

 

At home, the pace slows. It is often operated by just the two of us and now has 4 other stations instead of a fiddle yard, including the scenic fiddle yard I mentioned earlier in the thread. We are stuck at the moment but most weeks we will spend a few hours working through the same sequence except now all the trains have a destination other than "fiddle yard".  So as we don't feel the need to have multiple trains moving about all the time, we can set one off and enjoy watching it run, then we will each shunt and prepare the next ones.

 

Another good example was Borchester Market. When being run by experienced operators, it was a joy to watch at shows and the crew enjoyed home sessions too.

 

But you are right. Designing a layout that is good for both purposes is not an easy trick to pull off and layouts that do it are few and far between.

 

I also think the number of people who want to achieve that feat is small. Most people are either layout builders or operators by nature. People who build like to run what they have built but are often happy with a tail chaser with a big fiddle yard. They see shunting as a chore to be avoided. They also claim, perhaps with some justification, that at shows, the public likes to see lots of trains whizzing round. Layouts like Stoke Summit or Gresley Beat back that up.

 

Running a terminus requires much greater concentration and is much harder work. So many are worked in what I call a lazy way at shows. Train comes in, runs round and leaves. Next one does the same. All the while, a tank engine pushes the same few trucks up and down the sidings in the yard so something is moving all the time. It can look very effective but it lacks a little flair and imagination and as an operator, I would soon get bored.

 

Buckingham is my favourite layout to operate and Narrow Road a close second. Both have the variety of operations that a layout needs to keep me interested. Even Leighton Buzzard, a tiny branch terminus, can keep me as an operator and viewers at a show entertained for ages because it is the same. Trains don't all do the same thing and you have to really think about how to run it. So it keeps both the operator and the viewer interested. That is the ideal combination for me.

 

I have rambled enough and not even mentioned a Minories!

 

 

  • Like 6
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
10 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

It would increase the overall width slightly, but I would make the bypass track on the Interstitial long enough for a loco lift so it can perform a duty as a loco spur without locos having to actually sit there, and they could be turned easily too.

There is some room within the 4ft length(width) to push the turnouts further apart but it would make that board deeper. Not necessarily a problem just pointing it out. (BTW: I didn't really draw that board properly - the bypass is hanging in thin air at the moment.)

 

Related to that do you think the viewer would see vehicles turning as they use the diversion routes from the bottom track? Even with the current design? If so, that might expose the magic to eagle-eyed viewers.

 

You can imagine stock cassettes hooking onto the fiddle yard at roughly the arrow positions with fold-away or removable supports on the back to the two boxed layouts. The longest might be about 1170mm (3ft10in) but you could also attach shorter ones, which might do the job of temporary, turnable loco spurs.


It would be really neat if the Interstitial could be made to fold up into a box the same size as the other layouts when folded. I imagine the fold line being horizontal this time but the board would then be 3.5ft by 2ft when unfolded. This would be a challenge for no practical benefit - just giving a sense of completeness to the OCD designers amongst us! :wink_mini:

 

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

There is some room within the 4ft length(width) to push the turnouts further apart but it would make that board deeper. Not necessarily a problem just pointing it out. (BTW: I didn't really draw that board properly - the bypass is hanging in thin air at the moment.)

I meant by pushing the MAD/SAD lines backwards a bit rather than anything on the front of the board. 

 

There is a risk that the turning will be visible unless there's a clear longest vehicle length between the points and the visible section. More length is the only way to fix that, I'd guess 10-15cm on either end would do it unless very short vehicles are used. The board would have to be split into 3 for transportation then though (two short ends and the pointwork on a bigger central board), since a 4ft lump is going to be hard enough to handle, never mind making it longer.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

Another good example was Borchester Market.

That's on my list too, Tony. The Leeds Victoria/Dewsbury Midland/Bradford London Road complex built over 45 years ago by Leeds MRS was probably the best I've been involved with:

Others such as Cwmafon and Herculaneum Dock from the same stable do the trick too...

I guess that Grantham does too although I haven't been lucky enough to operate it (yet).

 

Anyhow, none of those are anywhere near being Minories so I'll stop there!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

But you are right. Designing a layout that is good for both purposes is not an easy trick to pull off and layouts that do it are few and far between

There's also the fact that there are a lot of different ways to enjoy watching and operating, and the two don't necessarily correlate. I don't enjoy watching too many layouts, so much so that I've basically given up on exhibitions, but a good chunk of those that I have enjoyed watching I think I'd find spectacularly tedious to operate. I like purposeful shunting (well, switching since I have US HO trains, but it's the same thing), with a switch list and actual destinations, but it can take an hour to run one train up and down a 40ft long set of modules, which would probably not be a hit at a show. I think I would enjoy playing on Minories though.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
30 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

There's also the fact that there are a lot of different ways to enjoy watching and operating, and the two don't necessarily correlate. I don't enjoy watching too many layouts, so much so that I've basically given up on exhibitions, but a good chunk of those that I have enjoyed watching I think I'd find spectacularly tedious to operate. I like purposeful shunting (well, switching since I have US HO trains, but it's the same thing), with a switch list and actual destinations, but it can take an hour to run one train up and down a 40ft long set of modules, which would probably not be a hit at a show. I think I would enjoy playing on Minories though.

 

My criteria for any exhibition layout, or any layout I see in the press, which goes beyond any modelling standards, gauge or prototype is "Would I enjoy operating it myself". If the answer is yes, I can watch such a layout for quite a while.

 

Sadly, it is rare at shows. Nowadays, I find exhibitions are great for a social event, chatting with people I don't see often. hey can be good for finding bits on trade stands, Every once in a while I see a layout that grabs my attention operationally.

 

Funnily enough, the last time I saw a new layout that I really enjoyed watching, it wasn't a true Minories but was a close cousin, it being the plan I have nicked and modified slightly for my new mini Minories illustrated previously in the thread.

 

There was an L shaped terminus, GWR, a double barrelled name that I can't remember now, that I saw some 30 odd years ago. It was exhibited by a group and had a Welsh name. Something "Riverside" maybe. It was possibly the best operated layout I have ever seen at a show. It needed several operators and as you watched it, you never quite knew what was going to happen next. A train would arrive and a loco would come off shed. You expected i to back down onto the train that had just arrived but it would go to a carriage siding. You would expect it to pull some carriages out into a platform but a goods would arrive. You would expect that to shunt but something else would happen instead. It was the sheer unpredictability of it all that really appealed to me.

 

Best of all, the operators knew how to run it. There were no big discussions about what to do next and how to do it. They were highly skilled and had obviously put a lot of work into learning how to run it.

 

I had that layout firmly in my mind when designing Narrow Road. I like to think we got close to that level once or twice!

 

I have found that even a relatively simple shunting layout can entertain people at exhibitions if there is a clear purpose, it is done well and maybe here is an explanation as to what is being done and why. If you also engage the viewers by perhaps asking for their "help" in deciding what goes where, or what you move first, the audience participation element can be very enjoyable.

 

It is all about putting on a bit of a show for the people who have paid to see the layout!  

Edited by t-b-g
typo correction
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add that the other part of operation on the US layouts that I enjoy is that it's a two person job. We'd run with an engineer and a conductor, so two people operating one train. (I prefer to be the engineer personally). We engage in perfectly realistic practices such as manually uncoupling with a skewer (the tool isn't what they use, but the practice is), pushing misaligned couplers into alignment (necessary with knuckle couplers on curved tracks) and on some module locally controlled unmotorised points.

 

I/we don't tend to go full Mindheim and allow time for the conductor to walk from the loco to wherever the cars need uncoupling, or stop to put out the flare things at road crossings (though I do try to operate the horn correctly at least - the bell is usually a bridge too far...), but I do drive pretty slowly...

 

So my ideal operational layout is 40' long, with maybe 2 trains moving taking an hour to run up and down and 4 operators doing that. Sometimes there would be a yard switcher making up the next train in the interchange yard (might be scenic, might not, either way it's done with a loco and not hands). It's not exactly all action, and being "foreign rubbish" it's got all the necessary characteristics to never be invited to any exhibitions. Which is absolutely fine, because it's more fun without the pressure of spectators.

 

Nothing to do with Minories though.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Over my 40 plus years involvement with the hobby, exhibiting layouts or going to shows, I can recall a tiny number of exhibition layouts that people also enjoy operating at home. I have been lucky to visit a number of super home based layouts that were great to operate but didn't go to shows.

 

So you are right, it is a very difficult ask to have a layout that fulfils both roles well. One of my very limited ambitions in the hobby has been to do just that and I think that Ken Hill and I did manage it with Narrow Road. 

 

At a show, we had 8 operators, 6 on the layout and 2 spares. It was a terminus to fiddle yard, double track, with 4 platforms, a goods yard and a loco shed. In a one hour sequence, we could run almost 60 trains in and out plus shunting and light engine moves to and from the shed. It was quite a hit at shows and we did most of the top shows in the country.

 

At home, the pace slows. It is often operated by just the two of us and now has 4 other stations instead of a fiddle yard, including the scenic fiddle yard I mentioned earlier in the thread. We are stuck at the moment but most weeks we will spend a few hours working through the same sequence except now all the trains have a destination other than "fiddle yard".  So as we don't feel the need to have multiple trains moving about all the time, we can set one off and enjoy watching it run, then we will each shunt and prepare the next ones.

 

Another good example was Borchester Market. When being run by experienced operators, it was a joy to watch at shows and the crew enjoyed home sessions too.

 

But you are right. Designing a layout that is good for both purposes is not an easy trick to pull off and layouts that do it are few and far between.

 

I also think the number of people who want to achieve that feat is small. Most people are either layout builders or operators by nature. People who build like to run what they have built but are often happy with a tail chaser with a big fiddle yard. They see shunting as a chore to be avoided. They also claim, perhaps with some justification, that at shows, the public likes to see lots of trains whizzing round. Layouts like Stoke Summit or Gresley Beat back that up.

 

Running a terminus requires much greater concentration and is much harder work. So many are worked in what I call a lazy way at shows. Train comes in, runs round and leaves. Next one does the same. All the while, a tank engine pushes the same few trucks up and down the sidings in the yard so something is moving all the time. It can look very effective but it lacks a little flair and imagination and as an operator, I would soon get bored.

 

Buckingham is my favourite layout to operate and Narrow Road a close second. Both have the variety of operations that a layout needs to keep me interested. Even Leighton Buzzard, a tiny branch terminus, can keep me as an operator and viewers at a show entertained for ages because it is the same. Trains don't all do the same thing and you have to really think about how to run it. So it keeps both the operator and the viewer interested. That is the ideal combination for me.

 

I have rambled enough and not even mentioned a Minories!

 

 

Hi Tony

 

I find good exhibition layouts work when they entertain the views for a short period because that is the time spent by most punters, so a roundy roundy or a branch terminus where the same action is repeated is all that is needed.

 

With a home layout there is not that need to entertain viewers and so one can expand on the operations and they also have more meaning than "gotta keep sum-fing running".

 

A well operated Minories style layout were the viewer feels they are watching rush hour trains zooming in and out is great to watch. One where the operators are recreating some sleepy rural backwater defeat the object of a Minories layout. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Back on the idea of connecting Minories to another terminus with each acting as the fiddle yard for the other...

 

Here is a drawing of a whole system:

1436975511_MIS4c.png.b218f564f30348ff7013d29615eb805d.png

 

(I improved my version of Seironim slightly to have smoother curves and to fold in the middle.)

 


For home use, in a shed or garage perhaps, you could have the two termini either side joined by a scenic U (maybe even incorporating an intermediate or passing station), but with the option of taking one / other or both to an exhibition, with either Interstitial or a conventional traverser (which could still feed the MAD / SAD lines for extra storage).

 

It’d be way above my level of modelling, but in the right hands I could see it working for someone who didn’t want a continuous run system, but enjoys timetable operation with short trains.  There’s an element of ‘retro’ thinking (our source is 1950s after all), but I think it comes up to date rather well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
42 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Tony

 

I find good exhibition layouts work when they entertain the views for a short period because that is the time spent by most punters, so a roundy roundy or a branch terminus where the same action is repeated is all that is needed.

 

With a home layout there is not that need to entertain viewers and so one can expand on the operations and they also have more meaning than "gotta keep sum-fing running".

 

A well operated Minories style layout were the viewer feels they are watching rush hour trains zooming in and out is great to watch. One where the operators are recreating some sleepy rural backwater defeat the object of a Minories layout. 

 

Indeed. I don't think Cyril Freezer tried to or anybody else has worked out a way of combining "Minories" and "Sleepy rural backwater" in a convincing way.

 

It is and always has been a big town/city secondary terminus and the design is ideally suited to that purpose. My new one will be set on your patch, Sheffield! 

 

Part of the joy of Minories is the opportunity to create a busy scene with the minimum of track and space as a contrast to the sleepy branch line that many modellers would go for if they had that sort of room available.

 

My hope is that even as a small exhibition and home layout, my mini Minories will allow several different types of operation, with the minimum gap between one move finishing and the next starting and some moves happening together.

 

With the best will in the world, at a show with lots of layouts, somebody staying to watch for, say, a whole hour, is unlikely.

 

However, probably my all time favourite moment at a show came at Warley a few years ago, when we were there with Leighton Buzzard. One chap came to us as the show opened and watched for almost the full sequence, probably around 45 minutes. He came back around 3.30pm and watched for another hour. I got chatting with him as I wanted to let him know how much I appreciated him spending so much time with such a little layout when there were so many more to look at. He replied that of all the layouts there, it was the most interesting to watch operating. 90 layouts to look at and he enjoyed us running a little branch terminus best of all because it was a) working really well and b) everything was being run properly.  Even just allowing a few seconds to give time for a shunter to couple up before a rain moves off, or to allow the driver to work the reverser in the loco, combined with accelerating and slowing of locos instead of on/off looks so much better than the instant movement you get on so many layouts.

 

But that is another subject altogether and nothing to do with Minories!

 

    

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Indeed. I don't think Cyril Freezer tried to or anybody else has worked out a way of combining "Minories" and "Sleepy rural backwater" in a convincing way.

 

It is and always has been a big town/city secondary terminus and the design is ideally suited to that purpose. My new one will be set on your patch, Sheffield! 

 

Part of the joy of Minories is the opportunity to create a busy scene with the minimum of track and space as a contrast to the sleepy branch line that many modellers would go for if they had that sort of room available.


One of the points CJF would make in his writing (frequently, I’d suggest) was that a cramped city terminus could offer more operation in a smaller space than a sleepy rural backwater where land was not a constraint of course.

 

I’d agree that combining them fully stretches things - Chris116’s Twig branch a few pages back was perhaps as far as it could go?  A more realistic idea might be to build two shelf layouts and pick one or ‘t’other to play with (could share some rolling stock).

 

I don’t get to many exhibitions (I work weekends full on usually), but the thing I appreciate most when I do is the time and effort put in by those offering themselves and their work for us all to share - so I’d like to say “Thank you!” to the likes of t-b-g and co. at this point.
One of the key differences to home running can be how we experience time on either side of the board - at home, who will notice if I just leave the same train to run for 15 minutes? (Chances are I won’t even realise it’s been so long), and with a Minories type layout, everything could stop while I inspect a dodgy coupling or a strange derailment.
 

My bigger concern is that I have other projects on the go, and my resistance to building a city terminal model is weakening...

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
(Autocorrect corrected)
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say it certainly is possible to combine operational interest with being interesting to watch - I've operated several of John Thorne's 009 layouts at shows which managed both. And there are other layouts around which achieve the same end - there was a very good mixed-level O gauge layout at Warley last year (passenger station on top, goods yard below) - always something moving and often several things moving at the same time. Conversely, watching the same train belting down the same stretch of track every few seconds doesn't hold the attention very long. 

 

The key though is to make sure things keep moving. It helps if there is more than one operator, either to operate parts of the layout independently, or one to turn trains round in the fiddle yard while the other drives. However what needs to be avoided is the situation where the operators are all waiting for each other and nobody quite knows where everyone's up to. (Operators having to scroll through a long list of loco numbers every time they want to change engines doesn't help either...)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, t-b-g said:

Another good example was Borchester Market. When being run by experienced operators, it was a joy to watch at shows and the crew enjoyed home sessions too.

 

But you are right. Designing a layout that is good for both purposes is not an easy trick to pull off and layouts that do it are few and far between.

 

I think this is an instructive example.  There's nothing particularly unsual about the overall scheme of Borchester Market: a medium sized terminus with a kickback goods yard, loco stabling and an industrial branch. 

 

I'd suggest that the secret is in the execution and operation of the railway: a detailed track layout that allows a variety of realistic movements; full and correct working signaling; a varied timetable fully utilising the track layout and informed by a knowledge of prototype practice.  All supported by a well trained team of operators who know the layout and drive the trains properly. 

 

It seems to me that there are many similar layouts which by more careful, varied and realistic working would be a great deal more interesting both to operate and to watch.  So often at exhibitions I see layouts that don't appear to be operating anywhere near their potential.  

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I think this is an instructive example.  There's nothing particularly unsual about the overall scheme of Borchester Market: a medium sized terminus with a kickback goods yard, loco stabling and an industrial branch. 

 

I'd suggest that the secret is in the execution and operation of the railway: a detailed track layout that allows a variety of realistic movements; full and correct working signaling; a varied timetable fully utilising the track layout and informed by a knowledge of prototype practice.  All supported by a well trained team of operators who know the layout and drive the trains properly. 

 

It seems to me that there are many similar layouts which by more careful, varied and realistic working would be a great deal more interesting both to operate and to watch.  So often at exhibitions I see layouts that don't appear to be operating anywhere near their potential.  

 

 

 

I feel very much the same way. I look at a layout, often see a well designed plan with lots of potential interesting moves and I wait awhile hoping to see some and don't.

 

I did once ask an operator on quite a well know layout if the points were wired up to work or were they just cosmetic as they had lots on the layout and after 30 minutes watching, not one had changed. "They do work but the public isn't interested in shunting so we just send trains round" was the reply. I pointed out that as the yard and branch were on one side of the layout, the other main line was clear and you could have expresses or through trains going one way while the other side had something backing into the yard to shunt but he wasn't interested.

 

I have found quite the opposite. Even the simple act of bringing a train to a crawl and then almost to a stop at a signal, clear the signal and pull away adds something that just "whizzing them round" does not. I find that even the "general public" are interested in realistic and interesting operating, especially if you get the opportunity to explain what you are doing and why.

 

A well thought out sequence/timetable and operators who know how a layout works is a huge part and every layout I have enjoyed watching has had those two aspects covered.

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...