Theory of General Minories

[Keith Addenbrooke]

2 hours ago, Zomboid said:

You don't need any more space than 8x4 if you would be happy with trains consisting of a tank engine/ small diesel with 2 bogie carriages and a 4 wheel CCT... (more carriages probably possible if you're going pre-grouping)

 

The location of the pointwork means that if it's on sectional boards then it's got to be 3x 3x1 and 3x 2x1 (the ends could be something different, and the kickback at Minories would have its pointwork on a join so I didn't bother. There's no way of getting the MAD/SAD connections in in this space, but c'mon man, this is an 8x4 layout plan...

 

I have to say that I think @Harlequin's Seironim is really fantastic. The way it conveys "major station complexity" in a really small space is very impressive.

 

The curves are both 3rd radius with little straight bits on the outer to account for the differing radius. I'm sure better could be achieved to give a more consistent 6 foot, but I didn't bother with that.

 

It also highlights that I really should pay for Anyrail, I've definitely had £45s worth of fun out of it...

A comment by Linn Westcott in 101 Track Plans suggested the average size of (US) layout actually built was around 9’ x 5’.  While that was many years ago, it was roughly contemporaneous (?) of CJF’s Minories so could be used as a guide.  Box rooms in this country tend to be 8’ x 6’ (see July BRM), certainly in older houses which would give width but not length (unless you curve the platforms at the Concourse end too).  Just putting it out there...

Edited June 17, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke
missing )

[Nearholmer]

9’x5’ sounds about the minimum you’d need in 00 to do the terminus-circuit-terminus layout, because that’s what my 0 version would scale down to. You’d have to accept quite tight point radii and curves too, CJF stuff.

 

Tank engines and 50ft coaches, or multiple-units.

 

Hornby Dublo would be ideal, if only it ran to modern standards.

 

It would work, but you’d need to have a real talent for urban scenery to avoid it looking like what it is: a grown-up toy train-set layout.

[Metropolitan H]

42 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Chris

 

I suggest that you draw the platforms on, and photograph a Met train on the layout, because then it will be easier for those who haven’t seen it to understand how very good it is.

 

K

 

(while cooking the dinner)

Kevin,

 

Thanks for that. I will do a revised plan copy soon, but I'll have to do the full "Mark-up" of the Any-rail print, as I have realised the version posted doesnt show the final iterration that removed the reverse curve on the terminal road loco release crossover - giving room in the corner for the Express Dairy premises and platform.

 

Regards

Chris H

[Keith Addenbrooke]

6 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

 

I reckon you can get away with using 3rd and 4th setrack radius curves with streamline track spacing, without it looking odd, if you mix and match a bit.  Here's a fragment with part numbers shown, based on the curve in to the fiddle yard on my layout:

Am I right in thinking that your plan is based on medium and long radius Streamline turnouts, and doesn't use any short radius at all?

Sorry ejs, missed the question in your post: you are correct.  I used long points for the station throat and medium points elsewhere.  I also stuck to the 3rd radius curve - essentially the same rules I applied for my own layout design, as I know what they look like.  Using long points for compact designs is a luxury, but I like them. 

 

 

[Zomboid]

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

A comment by Linn Westcott in 101 Track Plans suggested the average size of (US) layout actually built was around 9’ x 5’.  While that was many years ago, it was roughly contemporaneous (?) of CJF’s Minories so could be used as a guide.  Box rooms in this country tend to be 8’ x 6’ (see July BRM), certainly in older houses which would give width but not length (unless you curve the platforms at the Concourse end too).  Just putting it out there...

9x5 would certainly be an improvement. The first extra foot in length I'd use for longer platforms so trains could be 3+CCT, the second I'd use for longer pointwork (it's all short streamline points other than the slip and two long Ys at Seironim), and then any extra length/ width would allow a longer run between stations. At about 15' long I might add to the platforms again...

 

The MAD/SAD arrangement needs a lot of space to be done on a corner, it works out about 4' radius on the outer line doing it with streamline in 90*. Don't know how 180* using set track might work, could be a goer.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

9’x5’ sounds about the minimum you’d need in 00 to do the terminus-circuit-terminus layout, because that’s what my 0 version would scale down to. You’d have to accept quite tight point radii and curves too, CJF stuff.

 

Tank engines and 50ft coaches, or multiple-units.

 

Hornby Dublo would be ideal, if only it ran to modern standards.

 

It would work, but you’d need to have a real talent for urban scenery to avoid it looking like what it is: a grown-up toy train-set layout.

Modern light rail / metro would work - the Minories ‘parallelogram’ could look quite very effective as street track.  There’d be a lot of scratchbuilding (ideally suitable track as well as rolling stock), so a small layout would probably be enough - but a great showcase.  The range of downloadable card models available now would make the scenery possible with patience.  I’d pay to see it, but can’t imagine me building it.  
 

At which point I think I should take the advice of @t-b-g and move from theory to building.  I wonder if that PVA / ballast has set yet...

Edited June 17, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke
(final tidy up)

[RJS1977]

Wow, plenty going on here while I've been working today!

 

My suspicion is that Cyril (who I believe was a Peco employee - he was famously interviewed by Sydney Pritchard as Mr P's train pulled out of Waterloo, giving Mr P just time to ask "Would you like to move to Devon and edit the magazine full time?" and Cyril to say "Yes"!) didn't really intend his plans to be copied too slavishly - although some could be - but rather to be a starting point for the builder's imagination. So I think he would be delighted to see all the variations on his plan which have appeared over the last 50 pages.

 

One thought though - all the discussions so far seem to have been around standard gauge city termini (which of course is what CJF had in mind - but what about narrow gauge or miniature railways? In some peak seasons it's not unknown for miniature railways to operate a service not far removed from Clapham Junction's - and Hythe RHDR is really a Minories with a central carriage siding and a turntable. Similarly Statfold on a gala day is often turning trains round as soon as they arrive, although that is a two-platform station with a single track approach.

 

Another possibility would be a DLR or Tyne and Wear Metro setting.

[Nearholmer]

While off at a tangent of unusual city termini, two 3ft gauge ones to consider, both very busy in their heyday: the Boston end of the Boston, Revere Beach and Lynn, which helpfully dived into a tunnel; and, Palma de Majorca. In a similar vein, a slightly condensed version of Douglas IoM perhaps.

 

(I think the steam railway at Palma was 3ft, and the electric metre, but check to be sure)

 

The Boston one could have a rather interesting cameo.

 

 

Edited June 17, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Pacific231G]

8 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Thanks for the clarification - clearer than my post.  I suspect there’s more to finish the last sentence, though?
 

 

That's strange, the post I sent ended. 

....The fine irony is that so far as we know the one person who never actually built a Minories was CJF himself .

I've edited the post accordingly.

[Pacific231G]

On 17/06/2020 at 14:26, scottystitch said:

A number of years ago, a forum member sent me a diagram of minories with add on modules.  I'm not sure of the origin of said modules; was it Freezer's idea?  Anyway, I had a go of drawing them out in N gauge.  Track is Code 40 and most of the turnouts are B6, although there is a B7 and and a B8 in there as well.  The crossing in the station is actually a number 6 double slip.  The crossing at the Junction is a number 6 as well, but just a standard diamond.

 

I've rationalised the Engine Servicing board down to a single road engine shed and a siding for a rake of 3 carriages.  The shed for the station pilot (which would double as the goods yard shunter?), perhaps, and a turntable for incoming service train locomotives to turn and be fuelled/watered.

 

I had pondered a canal basin in the dead ground between station and goods yard.  The wharf might make for interesting operations.

 

If it were to be exhibited, I'd imagine the operators would be on the inside of the curve, but I suppose you could have it vice versa as well.  For a home setup you could utilise the curved modules to make the layout suit the room it was set up in.

 

The engine shed board and the junction board could have their positions swapped. I suppose the canal basin would have to be either a seperate board or part of the goods yard board so it went wherever the goods yard went.

 

Best

 

Scott.

 

 

Hi Scott

Yes it was CJF and I think it may have been me who sent you the relevant page. It was in an article in Model Railways in September 1981 and this time Minories, and by implication the other modules, were  on a viaduct rather than in a cutting- there was such a high level loco shed, I think at Blackfriars, in the still fascinating complex of lines all on viaducts south of the Thames between London Bridge and Waterloo East. The idea was that, having built the modules, they could be assembled in several ways particuiarly to giive different sizes for exhibtions and more modules could be added. though with the terminus at one end and the fiddle yard at the other and there would be no need to build any scenery beyond the railway- a good 'London Particular' (aka deadly smog) and you wouldn't see it anyway . The occupied viaduct arches could be built or just their parapet walls as the edge of the baseboards. There was some discussion  here about the plan and I think the consensus was that the loco shed would be better mirrored with a trailing connection to the main line.  For your plan I think that would avoid hving to shunt into the fiddle yard but the order as  you have it would make the most sense as you'd surely not have a loco servicing track at a terminus if the loco shed was next to it.

I notice in this plan that CJF returned to the most basic form of  Minories but with its length increased to nine feet with the usual scope for optional extension of the straight platform tracks at the left hand end.

That article included CJF's descriptino of the origin of Minories (which he states should be pronounced min not mine)

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

It's quite clear both from discussing it with him  and from his writings that Cyril Freezer was very proud of Minories so would be delighted than we're still discussing it over sixty years after he first published it.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Pacific231G

[St Enodoc]

53 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

That article included CJF's descriptino of the origin of Minories (which he states should be pronounced min not mine)

Good!

[Harlequin]

@Keith Addenbrooke suggested restating what the original Minories plan actually was and noted that we can't reproduce the original drawings.

 

So here's my version of the basic SP35 design using Streamline parts and shown in the parallel projection style of those original drawings:

 

 

Feel free to copy and distribute this image as required but please add a link back to this post.

 

Created in Xara Designer Pro and Sketchup.

 

This is not intended to be definitive in any way - it's just my interpretation of the plan.

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Harlequin
Corrections and credits in drawing

[ejstubbs]

8 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

CJF's descriptino of the origin of Minories (which he states should be pronounced min not mine)

 

A pal of mine has worked for years in the property business in the City of London.  Those guys know every nook and cranny of the place.  He pronounces Minories with a short "i".  This is supported by the Wikipedia article about the parish, which gives the IPA pronunciation of the "i" as: "as in kit or historic".  There is basically no argument that the short "i" is the standard pronunciation for the area of the City of London.

 

Confusingly, though, the word from which the name derives, "minoress" is pronounced with a long "i" as in "my" (per the OED).  A minoress is a member of the Second Order of St Francis aka the Poor Clares.  The placename arises from historic locations of abbeys and monasteries of the order; as well as the City of London there are examples in other towns and cities in the UK including Birmingham, Colchester, Newcastle upon Tyne and Stratford-upon-Avon.

Edited June 18, 2020 by ejstubbs

[Zomboid]

With regard to the Minories/ Seironim on an 8x4, it's not quite possible to get the MAD/SAD connections onto the curve of the U within the 4' width using unmodified set track. But it's not far off; hacking the straight bits of the points down might buy enough space to get a line in behind each terminus, and loco spurs can go in the corners for taking the train back with different motive power.

 

It's all second radius, it might work if you use first radius for some/ all of the MAD/SAD connections, but obviously we try not to use R1 in general.

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Zomboid

[Zomboid]

16 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

@Keith Addenbrooke suggested a restatement of what the original Minories plan was and noted that we can't reproduce the original drawings.

Would it be a terrible imposition to request a similar view of Seironim?  I very much like that plan and would be keen to have a go at building it if there was any hope that I'd have the time to do so.

[Harlequin]

47 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Would it be a terrible imposition to request a similar view of Seironim?  I very much like that plan and would be keen to have a go at building it if there was any hope that I'd have the time to do so.

Yes, that would be fun and not too difficult because the box construction is just mirrored. The final graphic would be mirrored too in a very satisfying way:

 

Before I commit to it, though, can anyone see any huge flaws in the track plan of Seironim?

Is the position of the parcels bay a complete killer? (I realise it would be difficult to operate - but maybe that's a good thing...???)

There is a reverse curve on the route into Platform2 but that's the only one of the 6 possible inbound and outbound routes (the same as Minories...!) and I don't think it can be avoided in the space available.

What are people's opinions of the fact that a lot of P2 falls outside the model's volume?

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Harlequin

[Zomboid]

If I were building it then it would be unlikely that the 1' width would be a major constraint, I'd probably do it at 14" or so, so the platform 2 issue wouldn't be one really. That doesn't help too much, though.

 

In the version I sketched for the U shape I got a wider platform 2 by using Y points on the RH end of the slip, at the cost of making P1/ parcels a bit narrower, which might be worth a look?

[CaptainBiggles]

Upminster (have I mentioned that already) has the shuttle to Romford where Harlequin’s parcel bay is. It actually isn’t connected to the lines at Upminster, only at the Romford end of its single-track branch, but I can’t see a big problem in imagining it ran “wrong line” for a few hundred meters before branching off. This might also allow the platform to be used for other traffic provided turnaround was fast enough (a round trip to Romford takes 30 mins)

[Harlequin]

47 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

In the version I sketched for the U shape I got a wider platform 2 by using Y points on the RH end of the slip, at the cost of making P1/ parcels a bit narrower, which might be worth a look?

Yes, I noticed that and when I tried it, it made P1 either too narrow to be realistic or too short.

The 1ft width constraint makes life very difficult but if the design is to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Minories (literally!) I feel the basic design has to work within it - even though nobody will probably ever build it in that form!

(Is that going a bit over the top? Maybe. Sorry, just dreaming.)

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Harlequin

[whart57]

Continuing along this tangent, how about Amsterdam, Spuistraat, the terminus of the metre gauge interurban tramline to Haarlem and Zandvoort. The trackplan contains a scissors crossing as well as various crossovers. The crossovers were needed as about a third of the services required the motor car to run round at the termini. The other services were push-pull with a motor car at each end.

 

Amsterdam city council forced the closure of the line in 1957, their objection was the long tram trains running through the centre (ironically they weren't much longer than the Combinos running today), the mix with the city trams and the need to have dual gauge track for a couple of kilometres. However this shot from 1955 shows what things were like.

 

[Zomboid]

39 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Yes, I noticed that and when I tried it, it made P1 either too narrow to be realistic or too short.

The 1ft width constraint makes life very difficult but if the design is to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Minories (literally!) I feel the basic design has to work within it - even though nobody will probably ever build it in that form!

(Is that going a bit over the top? Maybe. Sorry, just dreaming.)

 

7 x 1 is very constrained no matter how you look at it - one of the platforms has to be narrower than you'd ideally like if there's to be 4 tracks and 2 platforms in 1 foot of width, so pick your poison...

[Titanius Anglesmith]

44 minutes ago, CaptainBiggles said:

Upminster (have I mentioned that already) has the shuttle to Romford where Harlequin’s parcel bay is. It actually isn’t connected to the lines at Upminster, only at the Romford end of its single-track branch, but I can’t see a big problem in imagining it ran “wrong line” for a few hundred meters before branching off. This might also allow the platform to be used for other traffic provided turnaround was fast enough (a round trip to Romford takes 30 mins)

 

The original branch platform at Upminster had facing connections to the main lines in steam days (and a run-round loop), so in theory it could have been used to terminate trains from Fenchurch St, although I don't know if it ever was.  The connection at the Romford end was rarely used and was actually removed in the 1930s, but was reinstated during the Second World War as an alternate route in case of disruption elsewhere.

[RJS1977]

2 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

7 x 1 is very constrained no matter how you look at it - one of the platforms has to be narrower than you'd ideally like if there's to be 4 tracks and 2 platforms in 1 foot of width, so pick your poison...

 

Possibly slightly narrow but not by much. A 1' baseboard allows four tracks (allow 2" for each) and another 2" for each platform.

 

The current standard for platforms is that there needs to be 6' clear width between any obstruction on the platform and the platform edge, or if no obstruction, a double-sided platform should be 12' wide.

 

2" on a 00 layout is 50mm. 6' on either side of the platform is 48mm, which leaves 2mm up the centre for lamp posts and station name boards. So only slightly narrow if at all and close enough to 'get away with'. The widest baseboard on my teenage 'Aberystwyth Mark 1' was 1' wide, and that had four tracks and two platforms on the board and didn't look too bad.

 

Obviously if you want benches, water towers, waiting rooms etc on the platform, it will need to be wider.

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Yes, that would be fun and not too difficult because the box construction is just mirrored. The final graphic would be mirrored too in a very satisfying way:

 

Before I commit to it, though, can anyone see any huge flaws in the track plan of Seironim?

Is the position of the parcels bay a complete killer? (I realise it would be difficult to operate - but maybe that's a good thing...???)

There is a reverse curve on the route into Platform2 but that's the only one of the 6 possible inbound and outbound routes (the same as Minories...!) and I don't think it can be avoided in the space available.

What are people's opinions of the fact that a lot of P2 falls outside the model's volume?

 

 

If you will forgive I think that reversing the loco spur might be better, so a loco doesn't get trapped if there if is a long train standing in P2. And less moves to put one into it I think. Been trying to do them in my head!

 

As here.

 

cheers,

 

Izzy

[t-b-g]

52 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Possibly slightly narrow but not by much. A 1' baseboard allows four tracks (allow 2" for each) and another 2" for each platform.

 

The current standard for platforms is that there needs to be 6' clear width between any obstruction on the platform and the platform edge, or if no obstruction, a double-sided platform should be 12' wide.

 

2" on a 00 layout is 50mm. 6' on either side of the platform is 48mm, which leaves 2mm up the centre for lamp posts and station name boards. So only slightly narrow if at all and close enough to 'get away with'. The widest baseboard on my teenage 'Aberystwyth Mark 1' was 1' wide, and that had four tracks and two platforms on the board and didn't look too bad.

 

Obviously if you want benches, water towers, waiting rooms etc on the platform, it will need to be wider.

 

I tried building a layout in 4mm  scale EM gauge and found that you can just fit 4 tracks and 2 platforms in 12" but if you want anything outside the railway, even a retaining wall, you have no room left. Plus your platforms have to be almost bare. No room for canopy supports, kiosks, or anything to make them interesting and finally your tracks have to be dead straight. You cannot introduce any curves like the ones in the Minories platforms or indeed the plan above. The spacing between a line and a loop or siding is wider than between 2 running lines too.

 

Unless the plan above is straightened up, I can't see it fitting onto less than a 15" wide board without the width of Platform 2 going to almost nothing where it curves.