Theory of General Minories

[Harlequin]

  

2 hours 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...

 

2 hours 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.

 

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

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.

 

I'll recheck but:

It is drawn to scale and it does fit with reasonable platform width for Platform 1. (>50mm for the majority of its length.)

The tracks use the standard Streamline 51mm between centre lines.

There is 20mm between track centres and platform edges.

Yes Platform 2 does reduce to a thin sliver (in my latest drawing, not yet published it's bigger than in the drawing above). Platform 2 is at the front edge of the scene and is sliced by the model volume - there is more width, it's just not in this model.

The plan is curved and does fit within 305mm / 12in width. From the bottom on my latest drawing where the P2 track is closest to the front edge of the box in mm: 21 (partial P2) + 20 + 51 + 51 + 20 + 69 (P1) + 20 + 53 = 305

 

So I think the design stands up to this challenge...

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Harlequin

[t-b-g]

7 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

  

 

 

 

 

I'll recheck but:

It is drawn to scale and it does fit with reasonable platform width for Platform 1. (>50mm for the majority of its length.)

The tracks use the standard Streamline 51mm between centre lines.

There is 20mm between track centres and platform edges.

Yes Platform 2 does reduce to a thin sliver (in my latest drawing, not yet published it's bigger than in the drawing above). Platform 2 is at the front edge of the scene and is sliced by the model volume - there is more width, it's just not in this model.

The plan is curved and does fit within 305mm / 12in width. From the bottom on my latest drawing where the P2 track is closest to the front edge of the box in mm: 21 (partial P2) + 20 + 51 + 51 + 20 + 69 (P1) + 20 + 53 = 305

 

 

One thing that many people don't do is to increase the clearances between tracks in a station area. In real life, the standards were (the ones I have looked at anyway) 8ft rail to rail between a running line and a loop or siding and 10ft between sidings. You need room for a shunter or a wheeltapper to be able to walk between two trains on adjacent tracks safely.

 

I was happy to widen the boards slightly on the Sheffield District Railway to allow clearances, a retaining wall plus a curve. Without that, it would have been really cramped. I did lay out a version on a 1ft board with narrow platforms but it just didn't appeal visually. 

 

I am sure your calculations are correct but I do feel that the design will always look squashed in width wise. That will clearly bother some people more than others! 

[Harlequin]

2 hours ago, Izzy said:

 

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

 

Thanks Izzy,

 

I think Zomboid reversed the loco spur in one of his versions, as well.

 

The route into P2 is via the blue crossover so if the train is "full length" and all the coaches stand alongside the platform then the loco is always going to be trapped, I think. But reversing the spur might still be a good move.

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Harlequin

[ejstubbs]

On 17/06/2020 at 11:26, St Enodoc said:

On 17/06/2020 at 11:21, 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.

 

 

Do you still get enough passing clearance with that reduced separation?

 

 

Apologies for the delay in answering your question.  In common with others as mentioned earlier in this thread, I don't actually run two trains at once as a matter of normal practice on my layout.  However, I have done some quick checks this morning and I can confirm that, with my Dapol LMS 12-wheel restaurant car straddling a 3rd radius curve on the outer track, a Hornby 57ft LMS coach can pass on the 3rd radius inner curve with ~4mm clearance at the closest point.  The result is similar the other way round i.e. the 57ft coach stradding the 3rd radius on the outer curve and the 12-wheeler traversing the 3rd radius inner curve.

 

Those are the longest items of stock I have, and they probably have the widest end throw (although one or two of my locos might be a tad worse in that respect - it didn't occur to me to test with them).

 

I suspect that with longer modern stock and diesel or electric traction the clearances might be a bit squeaky.

[Satan's Goldfish]

4 hours 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?

 

 

I don't know if it was mentioned earlier, but when I look at my first thought was to redraw as a mirror image and replace the slip with just a diamond crossing. I know this kinda defeats the point of it's name and puts the tracks off scene at the front, but it makes the parcels bay and centre road trailing, all arrivals only go into platforms for shunting. The loco stub point would need flipping to a trailing direction as well.

 

But that's just me, it's a nice design as is and everyone could probably rejig it to fit their preferred methods anyway!

[Pacific231G]

4 hours 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'd say possible but probably pushing it by an inch or so. I think the standard for minimum platform widths is actually now two and four metres respectively but there are grandfather rights for existing platforms.

Tom Cunnington's Minories (GN) in EM was built on 12" wide baseboards and that's just three track plus the two platforms.

Brian Thomas' Newford (now Littleton) in 7mm/ft  scale did have four tracks at the concourse end and that was (is) 22 inches wide which equates to 12.6 inches in 4mm/ft scale

 

That clearly works though the island platform does to my eyes look a bit narrow (narrower than the same platform on Minories (GN))  and the platform 2&3 canopy supports (removed when it became Littleton)  are clearly closer to the platform edge than six foot (though a central support probably would have been legal) .

 

Brian's separations are clearly closer than Peco's H0/OO equivalent but look right (though the clearances over curves had to be watched.

Peco's geometry for OO/H0 streamline track gives a centre to centre track spacing of 2" or 51 mm. 50 mm was the BRMSB minimum for OO. However, their minimum centre to centre recommendation for EM was 45mm (but 50mm for sidings) . Obviously the loading gauge width is the same for both 4mm/ft gauges so the minimum centre to centre separation should be the same. I assume the 'Bureau' simply expected that EM gauge modellers would use less sharp curves than their OO colleagues.

 

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Pacific231G
update from 50-51mm for Peco double track separation

[griffgriff]

24 minutes ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

 

I don't know if it was mentioned earlier, but when I look at my first thought was to redraw as a mirror image and replace the slip with just a diamond crossing. I know this kinda defeats the point of it's name and puts the tracks off scene at the front, but it makes the parcels bay and centre road trailing, all arrivals only go into platforms for shunting. The loco stub point would need flipping to a trailing direction as well.

 

But that's just me, it's a nice design as is and everyone could probably rejig it to fit their preferred methods anyway!

For what it’s worth that would be my thinking. The way the turnouts are positioned they for an ‘outside’ slip as they are. I think a crossing has the added bonus of improved reliability.

 

Griff

[Chilly]

21 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I'd say possible but probably pushing it by an inch or so. I think the standard for minimum platform widths is actually now two and four metres respectively but there are grandfather rights for existing platforms.

Tom Cunnington's Minories (GN) in EM was built on 12" wide baseboards and that's just three track plus the two platforms.

Brian Thomas' Newford (now Littleton) in 7mm/ft  scale did have four tracks at the concourse end and that was (is) 22 inches wide which equates to 12.6 inches in 4mm/ft scale

 

That clearly works though the island platform does to my eyes look a bit narrow (narrower than the samde platform on Minories (GN))  and the platform 2&3 canopy supports (removed when it became Littleton)  are clearly closer to the platform edge than six foot (though a central support probably would have been legal) .

 

Brian's separations are clearly closer than Peco's H0/OO equivalent but look right (though the clearances over curves had to be watched.

Peco's geometry for OO/H0 streamline track gives a centre to centre track spacing of 50mm which was the BRMSB minimum for OO. However, their minimum centre to centre recommendation for EM was 45mm (but 50mm for sidings) . Obviously the loading gauge width is the same for both 4mm/ft gauges so the minimum centre to centre separation should be the same. I assume the 'Bureau' simply expected that EM gauge modellers would use less sharp curves than their OO colleagues.

 

Hi 

 

As an aside where did you get the station and the platforms from, sorry as off topic they look great.

 

Chilly

 

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Chilly
Where did they get them from or are they scratch built?

[Chris116]

For those who are having problems with the track spacing I will just mention that stations built in the 19th century often had smaller clearances than are laid down now. Ropley on the Mid Hants being a case in point where staff are warned that the gap between the rails through the platforms is a lot closer than anyone would like it to be.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Chris116

[t-b-g]

11 minutes ago, Chris116 said:

For those who are having problems with the track spacing I will just mention that stations built in the 19th century often had smaller clearances than are laid down now. Ropley on the Mid Hants being a case in point where staff are warned that the gap between the rails through the platforms is a lot closer than anyone would like it to be.

 

That is a fair point and I have seen places where fixed objects have been closer than the official standards and platforms narrower too. Regarding another point raised above, 50mm centres in EM or P4 gives you tracks closer together than 50mm centres in 00. Only approximately 2mm but closer. So I always quote rail to rail dimensions rather than centres to take account of the differences.

[Nearholmer]

This just arrived in the newsletter of one of the groups I belong to, and it seems very relevant, and completely accurate, to me.

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Nearholmer

[t-b-g]

34 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I'd say possible but probably pushing it by an inch or so. I think the standard for minimum platform widths is actually now two and four metres respectively but there are grandfather rights for existing platforms.

Tom Cunnington's Minories (GN) in EM was built on 12" wide baseboards and that's just three track plus the two platforms.

Brian Thomas' Newford (now Littleton) in 7mm/ft  scale did have four tracks at the concourse end and that was (is) 22 inches wide which equates to 12.6 inches in 4mm/ft scale

 

That clearly works though the island platform does to my eyes look a bit narrow (narrower than the samde platform on Minories (GN))  and the platform 2&3 canopy supports (removed when it became Littleton)  are clearly closer to the platform edge than six foot (though a central support probably would have been legal) .

 

Brian's separations are clearly closer than Peco's H0/OO equivalent but look right (though the clearances over curves had to be watched.

Peco's geometry for OO/H0 streamline track gives a centre to centre track spacing of 50mm which was the BRMSB minimum for OO. However, their minimum centre to centre recommendation for EM was 45mm (but 50mm for sidings) . Obviously the loading gauge width is the same for both 4mm/ft gauges so the minimum centre to centre separation should be the same. I assume the 'Bureau' simply expected that EM gauge modellers would use less sharp curves than their OO colleagues.

 

 

A cracking example of the Minories breed.

 

Where there are 4 tracks and two platforms occupying the width, it illustrates what I was saying about curves. You can only do that in the space if they are all parallel to the baseboard edge. Any diagonal or curve and you have no room left. Unless, as has been mentioned, you have a platform with most of it "just beyond the edge" of the layout. I saw the O gauge version at Wakefield show a few years ago. I can't remember what name it was under at the time. I watched it for ages, so it must have been good!

[Pacific231G]

22 minutes ago, Chilly said:

Hi 

 

As an aside where did you get the station and the platforms from, sorry as off topic they look great.

 

Chilly

 

 

Hi Chilly

I didn't, it's not my layout though it is my favourite interpretation of Minories. Brian Thomas, who built it as 'Newford', scratchbuilt the main building  but I don't know if he used ready made mouldings for the platform walls. Being 7mm scale I rather doubt it though the supports do look to have been moulded so he may have done it himself. I've not been in touch with him recently though.

Brian sold it about ten years ago but, in its present guise as 'Littleton' the actual Minories terminus remains the same apart from the station nameboards and some scenic  changes at the throat end. 

[Flying Pig]

2 hours ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

 

I don't know if it was mentioned earlier, but when I look at my first thought was to redraw as a mirror image and replace the slip with just a diamond crossing. I know this kinda defeats the point of it's name and puts the tracks off scene at the front, but it makes the parcels bay and centre road trailing, all arrivals only go into platforms for shunting. The loco stub point would need flipping to a trailing direction as well.

 

But that's just me, it's a nice design as is and everyone could probably rejig it to fit their preferred methods anyway!

 

That's a much more conventional layout for UK practice and allows shunting to take place along the departure road which would probably make life easier for the signalman.

[Izzy]

2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

That's a much more conventional layout for UK practice and allows shunting to take place along the departure road which would probably make life easier for the signalman.

 

Yes, that's another plus feature of Minories, that as well as all the roads being accessible to arriving trains all shunting can take place along the departure. It's such a simple yet clever track design on all levels. Hard to better or equal it really when such a layout type is desired. But it's fun and a good challenge to try.

 

Izzy

[Zomboid]

7 hours ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

I don't know if it was mentioned earlier, but when I look at my first thought was to redraw as a mirror image and replace the slip with just a diamond crossing.

Just for the record, like this:

The loco spur still uses the inbound track for shunting, but all other lines are accessed via the outbound.

 

I like it either way round personally.

[Harlequin]

Just trying some to improve things:

 

The reverse curve into P2 is improved, P2 is wider, the parcels are shunted on the outbound line with shunting on the inbound only needing to handle pilot locos.

But the parcels siding is shorter, I'm not sure yet if P1 is long or wide enough, the throat is more congested and it seems to have lost some character. (Maybe trying too hard to retain the curves.)

 

[Zomboid]

In iteration the platforms are at least 4' long, possibly 4.5', which isn't bad in a 7' layout.

[St Enodoc]

8 hours ago, t-b-g said:

places where fixed objects have been closer than the official standards and platforms narrower too.

Loughborough Midland, Down platform under the road bridge.

[St Enodoc]

8 hours ago, t-b-g said:

50mm centres in EM or P4 gives you tracks closer together than 50mm centres in 00.

But the trains are the same width.

[t-b-g]

1 minute ago, St Enodoc said:

But the trains are the same width.

 

Apart from the wheels! The point I was making was that if you have 00 track and P4 track both at 50mm centres, the P4 track will have the rails on adjacent tracks closer together. So with no train on the track, it will be different. The prototype didn't specify dimensions from centre to centre (not the references I have seen anyway) but from one rail to the rail on the adjacent track. So if you make your track at a scale 6ft spacing rail to rail, your 00 bodies will be closer together than your P4 bodies due to the greater overhang. So you can have your rail to rail spacing correct, or your centres correct but not both!

[Pacific231G]

9 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

That is a fair point and I have seen places where fixed objects have been closer than the official standards and platforms narrower too. Regarding another point raised above, 50mm centres in EM or P4 gives you tracks closer together than 50mm centres in 00. Only approximately 2mm but closer. So I always quote rail to rail dimensions rather than centres to take account of the differences.

In this case though it was the clearances between vehicles that were crucial. The BRMSB "Standard Dimensions" actually gave a smaller centre to centre figure for EM than for OO, The same centre to centre distance would give the same separation between vehicles of the same width whatever the gauge (even for a monorail) so the EM figure of 45mm would bring vehicles closer together than the 50mm given for 00 and that was surely based on an expectation that "coarse scale" OO modellers would use smaller radius curves than  "finescale" EM modellers.  If your curves aren't that tight then you can use the same 45mm centre to centre separation for OO. The "six foot" will still be wider than the true six foot you could have with P4 (and almost with EM ) simply because OO track is narrow gauge but that narrowness is a lot less obvious with a 'scale' centre to centre distance.

It's only because most British modellers use narrow gauge track to represent standard gauge track that this becomes a factor but I think I'm probably agreeing with your latest post. A P4 body is (or should be) identical to a OO body.

 

Assuming that the GWR had to have a six foot way between the adjoining rails of their broad gauge tracks (I'm not sure that they did though) , vehicles would have been much futher apart. Though their vehicles were a bit wider than standard gauge they weren't as much broader as their gauge because of Brunel's ideas about increasing stability by keeping more of the mass between the rails.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Joseph_Pestell]

5 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Loughborough Midland, Down platform under the road bridge.

 

Quite a few places where platforms go below road bridges which result in substandard width. 

[t-b-g]

6 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

In this case though it was the clearances between vehicles that were crucial. The BRMSB "Standard Dimensions" actually gave a smaller centre to centre figure for EM than for OO, The same centre to centre distance would give the same separation between vehicles of the same width whatever the gauge (even for a monorail) so the EM figure of 45mm would bring vehicles closer together than the 50mm given for 00 and that was surely based on an expectation that "coarse scale" OO modellers would use smaller radius curves than  "finescale" EM modellers.  If your curves aren't that tight then you can use the same 45mm centre to centre separation for OO. The "six foot" will still be wider than the true six foot you could have with P4 (and almost with EM ) simply because OO track is narrow gauge but that narrowness is a lot less obvious with a 'scale' centre to centre distance.

It's only because most British modellers use narrow gauge track to represent standard gauge track that this becomes a factor but I think I'm probably agreeing with your latest post. A P4 body is (or should be) identical to a OO body.

 

Assuming that the GWR had to have a six foot way between the adjoining rails of their broad gauge tracks (I'm not sure that they did though) , vehicles would have been much futher apart. Though their vehicles were a bit wider than standard gauge they weren't as much broader as their gauge because of Brunel's ideas about increasing stability by keeping more of the mass between the rails.

 

I think the point I was trying to make was that you have to increase the 6ft and other clearances in 00 to keep the train bodies the right distance apart. A scale 6ft or 8ft rail to rail may make the track look better and may buy you an extra couple of mm of overall width on a layout but you lose some of the gap between bodies.

[St Enodoc]

27 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I think the point I was trying to make was that you have to increase the 6ft and other clearances in 00 to keep the train bodies the right distance apart. A scale 6ft or 8ft rail to rail may make the track look better and may buy you an extra couple of mm of overall width on a layout but you lose some of the gap between bodies.

It would only really work if you are modelling in H0 scale. Losing nearly 5mm between 00 trains even on parallel straight tracks is not a good idea. Don't even think about it on curves