Jump to content
 

Theory of General Minories


Mike W2
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

I have seen the layout mentioned with the four seasons both at a show and at the HMRS building.

 

That involved the same scene modelled 4 times in different periods as well as different times of the year.

 

I thought it was a very clever way of making a very simple layout more interesting.

 

My thoughts were mainly about how to solve the issue of a front operated home layout, giving an easy to operate fiddle yard with a scenic finish along the front, so it is a slightly different concept.

 

Developing the idea further, you could use it to add to the capacity of wagons on the layout as you could leave quite a few on the yard scene when you turn the fiddle yard around, so you refresh the wagons available for shunting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

That involved the same scene modelled 4 times in different periods as well as different times of the year.

 

 

 

Yes, it was - I think it was something like:

 

Spring - 1890s, railway starting out, everything nice and new.

 

Summer - 1910s, railway in its heyday, some increases in facilities and more modern locos, bogie coaches instead of four-wheelers.

 

Autumn - 1930s, economies starting to be made. Steam locos beginning to be replaced with diesels, buildings etc starting to deteriorate.

 

Winter - 1950s?, line on its last legs - track overgrown, buildings, locos (all diesels apart from a couple of derelict hulks of abandoned steam locos), rolling stock and buildings all in an advanced state of decay.

  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Full_card_clear_Olympus_27July2020_304.JPG.dec4d5af83c7a9e18083d1421bafe6d0.JPG

 

Very Christmassy! The snow must've just started as it isn't settling yet.

 

Now, let me think which well-known layout might have inspired that scene. It's on the tip of my tongue...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
26 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Very Christmassy! The snow must've just started as it isn't settling yet.

 

Now, let me think which well-known layout might have inspired that scene. It's on the tip of my tongue...

 

The weird thing is that it was subconsciously done. The inspiration was actually a combination of Chesterfield Market Place for the station building and the other buildings and the market stalls are from a photo of the real Mansfield Market Place.

 

The Buckingham parallel had never even entered my head until I read your post but you are quite right to bring it up as it is now obvious.

 

The curtains are courtesy of Ken Hill. Some of the work was done in his spare bedroom, which still gets used when he has visitors to stay so still has proper bedroom style decor!

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I did actually make that exact comment slightly further on than the post of mine that you are quoting.

 

It is a very valid point. I am not sure I would want a scenic section blocking access to the fiddle yard on a home layout either.

 

Buckingham gets around that by having Leighton Buzzard above part of the fiddle yard but that fiddle yard needs virtually no attention to the trains other than turning the whole yard from time to time.

 

If you want a really radical idea, one I have just made up and never seen done (so probably has a major flaw in it somewhere), you could have a fan of points, hidden under a scenic feature, then a Denny turntable fiddle yard. You could then have two scenic sections, handed, attached one each side which turn with the fiddle yard, so one run through the sequence, it is a goods shed, the next time, it is a canal wharf or a wagon works. You could model the same scene twice but that seems to lack the impact of the two different scenes.

 

I just throw that out there as my contribution to layout design innovation!

You did indeed Tony and my apologies for missing it.

The idea of a narrow scenic feature in front of the fiddle yard to allow for working the yard from the front was used by Maurice Deane in his first published layout. The options seemed to be to either have a low backscene or a retaining wall that you could easily reach over or a removable section of scenery  such as a roadway to cover the fiddle yard between operating sessions (when one would presumably want the layout to look attractive in the room)  

 

I like the idea of having two such scenic features though not sure about the Denny turntable unless you've got the width to swing it. (or very short trains)

Something else that occurs to me is that a number of early layouts including Charford (in its later versions) and the common ancestor of terminus to fiddle yard layouts, Maybank, had storage sidings that weren't particularly accessible rather than a fiddle yard. Presumably stock wasn't actually handled apart from moving the loco (and presumably the brake van for goods) to the other end.  ISTR that Peter Denny arranged his timetables so that, at the end of the day's working, everything was in the right position to start the next day so you didn't need to "reset the board" (The big railway tries to achieve that too!) 

The other idea I rather liked was also from Marice Deane. In his Culm Valley Railway, a pretty faithful rendition of the actual branch, the fictional yard feeding the branch was scenicced and laid out so that trains were properly shunted rather than "fiddled". It was actually directly in front of the operator with Culmstock (one of two intermediate stations) behind it.

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

  • RMweb Premium
11 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

You did indeed Tony and my apologies for missing it.

The idea of a narrow scenic feature in front of the fiddle yard to allow for working the yard from the front was used by Maurice Deane in his first published layout. The options seemed to be to either have a low backscene or a retaining wall that you could easily reach over or a removable section of scenery  such as a roadway to cover the fiddle yard between operating sessions (when one would presumably want the layout to look attractive in the room)  

 

I like the idea of having two such scenic features though not sure about the Denny turntable unless you've got the width to swing it. (or very short trains)

Something else that occurs to me is that a number of early layouts including Charford (in its later versions) and the common ancestor of terminus to fiddle yard layouts, Maybank, had storage sidings that weren't particularly accessible rather than a fiddle yard. Presumably stock wasn't actually handled apart from moving the loco (and presumably the brake van for goods) to the other end.  ISTR that Peter Denny arranged his timetables so that, at the end of the day's working, everything was in the right position to start the next day so you didn't need to "reset the board" (The big railway tries to achieve that too!) 

The other idea I rather liked was also from Marice Deane. In his Culm Valley Railway, a pretty faithful rendition of the actual branch, the fictional yard feeding the branch was scenicced and laid out so that trains were properly shunted rather than "fiddled". It was actually directly in front of the operator with Culmstock (one of two intermediate stations) behind it.

 

Some interesting thoughts and recollections there.

 

Peter Denny wanted to do as little as possible in the fiddle yard. He preferred to call them storage sidings or even "the rest of the railway system" as he did very little fiddling. The only things that change are the coal wagons being swapped from empty to full bodies and a couple of headlamp changes. Otherwise, it just gets turned several times during the day long timetable.

 

After around 100 moves, usually 3 running sessions, everything is indeed back where it started.

 

In terms of operating a fiddle yard to terminus system, I have yet to see a better design.

 

I tried to do as little fiddling as possible on Mansfield Market Place, which has a fan of sidings for the fiddle yard.

 

It would be possibly to run it for a while and when all the trains in the fiddle yard have come out and gone back, swap the locos around. With a small number of spare locos, perhaps one tank loco and a couple of tender engines, one facing each way, you can work it by have a light engine that worked a train into the station go off scene supposedly to the shed for turning. In reality, it couples back onto a train in the fiddle yard. When that train comes in again, the trapped loco at the end of the fiddle yard is released and can arrive light engine off shed to take a train out. You can swap them about so it isn't always the same locos on the same trains. All you need in the fiddle yard are isolating switches and a good auto uncoupler.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 hours ago, john new said:

 

The four seasons layout a few years back was a similar idea. Two static fiddle yards and a rotating centre section to the layout - four segments each representing the same scene IIRC a small halt, but in the next season around the calendar. Rotated like a vehicle/drum wheel on a horizontal axle rather than spun on a vertical spigot as a roulette wheel would if that makes sense.

 

 

Wisbech & Upwell in 7mm? Outwell Basin or Upwell Basin, I think it was called. 

 

Saw it a few times on the circuit, some 20 years ago? Very clever concept and beautifully done, there was always a good crowd in front of it. 

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

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

I have seen the layout mentioned with the four seasons both at a show and at the HMRS building.

 

That involved the same scene modelled 4 times in different periods as well as different times of the year.

 

I thought it was a very clever way of making a very simple layout more interesting.

 

My thoughts were mainly about how to solve the issue of a front operated home layout, giving an easy to operate fiddle yard with a scenic finish along the front, so it is a slightly different concept.

 

Developing the idea further, you could use it to add to the capacity of wagons on the layout as you could leave quite a few on the yard scene when you turn the fiddle yard around, so you refresh the wagons available for shunting.


Another idea, which I don’t know if it has been mentioned or not before could be to have a different set of legs / supports at home (which could stay there) and have a lower layout set up - so you could easily see over the scenic divide into the (rear) fiddle yard when operating the layout from the front at home?  Makes working on scenic aspects of it easier as well?
 

Although there is bound to be stuff to store under a home layout, a typical small bookcase / cupboard may only be 30” - 32” tall.  Clarification: This may mean an alternative suggestion of a lower scenic divide for home use, if it is removable and when the exhibition layout height is also around 30” - 36” for viewing purposes.

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
Clarification
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 22/09/2020 at 01:11, t-b-g said:

 

Some interesting thoughts and recollections there.

 

Peter Denny wanted to do as little as possible in the fiddle yard. He preferred to call them storage sidings or even "the rest of the railway system" as he did very little fiddling. The only things that change are the coal wagons being swapped from empty to full bodies and a couple of headlamp changes. Otherwise, it just gets turned several times during the day long timetable.

 

After around 100 moves, usually 3 running sessions, everything is indeed back where it started.

 

In terms of operating a fiddle yard to terminus system, I have yet to see a better design.

 

I tried to do as little fiddling as possible on Mansfield Market Place, which has a fan of sidings for the fiddle yard.

 

It would be possibly to run it for a while and when all the trains in the fiddle yard have come out and gone back, swap the locos around. With a small number of spare locos, perhaps one tank loco and a couple of tender engines, one facing each way, you can work it by have a light engine that worked a train into the station go off scene supposedly to the shed for turning. In reality, it couples back onto a train in the fiddle yard. When that train comes in again, the trapped loco at the end of the fiddle yard is released and can arrive light engine off shed to take a train out. You can swap them about so it isn't always the same locos on the same trains. All you need in the fiddle yard are isolating switches and a good auto uncoupler.

Thanks Tony, that confirms what I understood except that the sequence runs over several timetable days before returning to the start.

I had noticed that, before the turntable storage sidings, most of Denny's yards ended in a turntable .

I've thought for some time, given that most of us probably have far more locos than the bare minimum needed to run a timetable, that one could operate an MLT with tender locos by having half facing in each direction then, as you say, the arriving loco that's just been released by its train being shunted to the "carriage sidings" (i.e the fiddle yard) by a station pilot runs into the fiddle yard and couples onto another train to become a later arrival (just don't look at the loco numbers!)

 The other advantage of that with automatic couplers (I use Kadees) is that there's no need to fit them to the front of an express tender loco where they tend to affect its appearance more. with diesels and tank locos that's not usually a problem. 

 

Modelling French practice, I need to do a bit more to each train than just run them back as they normally had a baggage car at the head end (a legal requirement with wooden bodied stock) and generally, though not always, put things like postal cars and even restaurants at the front. That's the main dilemma I face with Minories. In the four metre length I have available it can just about handle a four coach train with a short baggage car. View blockers can make that look credible but the real fun is to do all the remarshalling that steam era trains were subject to particularly if the terminus served two lines as it did in Britain at Fort William, Plymouth Millbay and a few others. With only four coach trains  to play with that gets a bit limited though it seems to be fine with five. 

 

The other way of running a Minories is of course to use a return loop rather than a fiddle yard and accept that suburban train tend to look much the same. I understand that Maybank was run that way in its final pre-war appearances at the MRC Easter show but I've seen it used to great affect on Jeff Pitt's rather wonderful Horn Lane Underground layout. That uses the Minories track plan with a fourth platform  giving two tube and two sub-surface (Met and District) platforms and a kick back stock siding very much inspired by Ealing Broadway.

 

Jeff uses the Minories loco spur to enable a Met slam door train to arrive steam hauled and depart with a Sarah Siddons type electric loco or vice versa or just to reverse it as an electric hauled train as at the Met station that inspired CJF in the first place.

Img_2808.jpg.0b8c68e518740ac8ba187a8163609e5e.jpg

 

After a flying junction to separate them, both lines make their way via another through station to reverse loops so there is a reasonable gap between a train leaving and returning several trains later and it took me a while to realise that there was no fiddle yard.

Img_2825.jpg.06bbb5017ee5dc5a59a5ebb304f4ed1b.jpg

 

LTmus08_0055.JPG.536dea981205e3d545749d24fdf99018.JPG

 

 

 

I think that in its home version (Jeff no longer exhibits it)  there is a set of points to feed additional trains into (or out of) the circuit. For a main line suburban Minories I guess you could use a simple return loop for the commuter traffic with a couple of blind sidings for the occasional express, parcels or goods trains, 

 

Edited by Pacific231G
spelling
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I noticed that, before the turntable storage sidings, most of Denny's yards ended in a turntable .

I've thought for some time, given that most of us probably have far more locos than the bare minimum needed to run a timetable, that one could operate an MLT like Minories with tender locos by having half facing in each direction then, as you say, the arriving loco that's just been released by its train being shunted to the "carriage sidings" (i.e the fiddle yard) by a station pilot runs into the fiddle yard and coples onto another train to become a later arrival (just don't look at the numbers!)

 The other advantage of that with automatic couplers (I use Kadees) is that there's no need to fit them to the front of an express tender loco where they tend to affect its appearance more. with diesels and tank locos that's not usually a problem. 

 

Modelling French practice I need to do a bit more to each train than just run them back as they normally had a baggage car at the head end (a legal requirement with wooden bodied stock) and generally, though not always, put things like postal cars and even restaurants at the front. That's the main dilemma I face with Minories. In the four metre length I have avaialable it can just about handle a four coach train with a short baggage car. View blockers can make that look credible but the real fun is to do all the remarshalling that steam era trains were subject to particularly if the terminus served two lines as it did in Britain at Fort William, Plymouth Millbay and a few others. With four coaches to play with that gets a bit limited though it seems to be fine with five. 

 

The other way of running a Minories is of course to use a return loop rather than a fiddle yard and accept that suburban train tend to look much the same. I understand that Maybank was run that way in its final pre-war appearances at the MRC Easter show but I saw it used to great affect on Jeff Pitt's rather wonderful Horn Lane Underground layout. That used the Minories track plan with a fourth platform  giving two tube and two sub-surface (Met and District) platforms and a kick back stock siding very much inspired by Ealing Broadway.

Img_2808.jpg.0b8c68e518740ac8ba187a8163609e5e.jpg

 

After a flying junction to separate them both lines made their way via another station to reverse loops so there is a reasonable gap between a train leaving and the same train returning

Img_2825.jpg.06bbb5017ee5dc5a59a5ebb304f4ed1b.jpg

and it took me a while to realise that there was no fiddle yard.

LTmus08_0055.JPG.536dea981205e3d545749d24fdf99018.JPG

Jeff ues the Minories loco spur to enable a Met slam door train to arrive steam hauled and depart with a Sarah Siddons type electric loco or vice versa.

 

I think that in its home version (Jeff no longer exhibits it)  there is a set of points to feed additional trains into (or out of) the circuit. For a main line suburban Minories I guess you could use a simple return loop for the commuter traffic with a couple of blind sidings for the occasional express, parcels or goods trains, 

 

 

Have you tried reading the numbers on the Buckingham carriages?

 

There is a basic "magic trick" in that one passenger train looks very much like another. So a train that goes off to the hidden sidings as an express to Marylebone returns a short while later as a service from Oxford (random names to illustrate the idea) The loco and train have turned around, so you see the carriages in a different order but the same set doubles up on more than one service.

 

The local trains are a bit better in that many work from Buckingham to Grandborough and back, so remain on scene.

 

The passenger sets on Buckingham stay intact (although there is a set of five GCR six wheelers that at one time have a very cryptic note in the timetable, detach two carriages, keep four. I think it dates back to the days when the push pull to Verney Junction was made up of two 6 wheelers. The timetable changed when the proper push pull trailer was built but not all the notes were altered!

 

The variation is mostly achieved by adding and detaching horse boxes, milk vans and other such tail loads.

 

A return/reversing loop does give you a lovely "hands off" fiddle yard at the expense of space. The Buckingham locos will negotiate a small radius, probably around 2' 6" to include a safety margin. Even then, a reverse loop plus loops outside it would still need a 6ft width, which just isn't there.

 

In any situation where space was available, that would my choice.

 

I am plotting one more Minories inspired layout, in O gauge. This will have the terminus in the garage and a reverse loop in a covered outside section in the garden, so for solo use, you can stay in the garage and run trains out and back. A couple of loops outside will allow the order to change. Stage 2 will be to add a continuous run around the garden and stage 3 will be to add a second terminus in the garden, so on a nice day, you have the option of "proper" operation from one end of the line to the other.

 

With all the other stuff I have on the go it might never happen but it would be nice to have!   

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I don't. I have started threads in the past on projects but I am so slow and get distracted so many times that they never end up showing much.

 

Part of me has become quite reluctant to post photos of what I do. I know my modelling isn't perfect and I got a bit fed up of other people who seem to feel the need to remind me every time I put a photo on! 

 

I will happily add some photos here to illustrate what I mean.

 

The layout was originally intended to be a scenic fiddle yard for the other end of the line from Narrow Road (which does have a website) 

 

http://www.narrowroadlayout.co.uk/

 

As such, it had to be able to handle 8 bogie carriages as a maximum length. So it was designed with a 4ft station throat and 8ft platforms.

 

In reality, it tended to look poorly proportioned and too "long and thin" and would benefit from the platforms and trains being shortened.

 

It may still get finished one day but it is no longer needed on Narrow Road which has a different scenic fiddle yard design installed, so mine is now purely an exhibition layout.

 

New_Layout_028.jpg.61c885b2791176de54c6d574acfea36e.jpg924310448_NewLayoutRMWeb.jpg.9307c70aa2e0533d80e5274c0bd0a7be.jpg

 

Not the best pictures but they show the design of the trackwork.

 

The line with the vans is a goods dock and the idea was to have a building and a canopy behind it.

 

A goods could arrive or be assembled in the centre road without blocking any platforms. The centre road could also be used to store an extra passenger set in "rush hours".

 

It did get a bit more scenic development but photos are scarce.

 

This was in the market square beyond the station building.

 

Full_card_clear_Olympus_27July2020_304.JPG.dec4d5af83c7a9e18083d1421bafe6d0.JPG

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure it's actually too long and thin (though in an ideal world it might be 7 x 50' coaches not 8)

 

The scenic weakness seems to me that great expanse of empty backscene: some group of decent scenic flats about half way down , like a warehouse or a brewery or the back of a department store , might help

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

I'm not sure it's actually too long and thin (though in an ideal world it might be 7 x 50' coaches not 8)

 

The scenic weakness seems to me that great expanse of empty backscene: some group of decent scenic flats about half way down , like a warehouse or a brewery or the back of a department store , might help

 

That was always part of the plan.

 

I mentioned earlier that the siding where the van train is standing was going to have buildings and a canopy behind it.

 

It was just never done, or should I say it hasn't been done yet?

 

Some scenic development was done at the exit to the fiddle yard and worked quite well. The middle board just never got going in a scenic sense.

 

I once saw the layout with just the throat and the middle board set up together and it just looked more balanced to my eyes. That, with the station building and market scene as an add on scenic feature would possibly look better.

 

Having said that, I am not going to change it as the new layout is based on a 4ft throat and 4ft platforms, so I have that balance. The one shown might get finished one day and there is something quite realistic about having a train standing in a platform that is much longer. Many layouts have a train length and platform length that match. In real life, the platforms were often much longer. 8 carriages was always a maximum and many trains were shorter on the model.

 

I would agree that my worries about the look might be misplaced and that good scenic treatment to the middle board might change my mind.

 

One thing I do remain convinced of is that the Minories design, perhaps with a few variations, is still well worth exploring.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

You did indeed Tony and my apologies for missing it.

The idea of a narrow scenic feature in front of the fiddle yard to allow for working the yard from the front was used by Maurice Deane in his first published layout. The options seemed to be to either have a low backscene or a retaining wall that you could easily reach over or a removable section of scenery  such as a roadway to cover the fiddle yard between operating sessions (when one would presumably want the layout to look attractive in the room)  

 

I like the idea of having two such scenic features though not sure about the Denny turntable unless you've got the width to swing it. (or very short trains)

Something else that occurs to me is that a number of early layouts including Charford (in its later versions) and the common ancestor of terminus to fiddle yard layouts, Maybank, had storage sidings that weren't particularly accessible rather than a fiddle yard. Presumably stock wasn't actually handled apart from moving the loco (and presumably the brake van for goods) to the other end.  ISTR that Peter Denny arranged his timetables so that, at the end of the day's working, everything was in the right position to start the next day so you didn't need to "reset the board" (The big railway tries to achieve that too!) 

The other idea I rather liked was also from Maurice Deane. In his Culm Valley Railway, a pretty faithful rendition of the actual branch, the fictional yard feeding the branch was scenicked and laid out so that trains were properly shunted rather than "fiddled". It was actually directly in front of the operator with Culmstock (one of two intermediate stations) behind it.

 

I've done this with Blacklade in the context of a Minories style layout . Photos of the fiddle yard are few and far between , but the general effect should be obvious - a distant backscene , and the actual scenic break provided by a much lower row of Scalescenes arches

 

The layout is worked from the front, and it works - but you really don't want to be putting things on the rails in the front road as it is tight under the scenic break. The back two FY roads are more suitable , though the back one is tight against the backscene...

 

There is a Kadee permanent magnet in there , which is very useful for freeing incoming locos from their train : this is the longest FY road , so i'ts the one used for loco-hauled substitutes . It's also the only practical option for a consisted DMU formation, and it is the far end of the run-round loop - functions that operationally can be in conflict [ I can't run round the engineers' train until I've got the loco-hauled substitute back into Pl.3...]  

 

The "scenic cover" is a fuelling point - effectively a fourth fiddle yard road 

1547930837_Blacklade36640x480.JPG.237bb15955d32dc4424df914d993b9a8.JPG

450060317_DSCN0739(800x600).jpg.a6578cba3c0258d8cb335041862dd72f.jpg

(here we are running kettles in the "funny trains" period. A station pilot has proved quite useful)

 

DSCN1044.JPG.12ef36ad218bb753d0e2ec10fe981120.JPG

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

image.png.9a0757a94820f1f606ceac785c7880c7.png

Funnily enough, one of my first templot plans was making an S7 version of that design - https://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-101-september-2010/

 

I think the crux of this design (and a number of Minories variations that I've sketched out since then) is that the double slip becomes a bottleneck - arrivals and departures block each other all over the place. That said, while it may be an issue for multiple operators, it's unlikely to be a deciding factor in a lone operator environment as most things would presumably be one move at a time, by sequence.

 

 

Edited by Lacathedrale
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Another problem with that plan is the train length. One of the fiddle yard roads is about 18" long clear of the point blades. Yet the write up suggests using a couple of scale length 80' cars in HO.

 

I don't see it as practical to operate as drawn. I would want the platform roads and fiddle yard with an extra foot length, making it 8ft long.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
43 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

Another problem with that plan is the train length. One of the fiddle yard roads is about 18" long clear of the point blades. Yet the write up suggests using a couple of scale length 80' cars in HO.

 

I don't see it as practical to operate as drawn. I would want the platform roads and fiddle yard with an extra foot length, making it 8ft long.


That’s fair comment - the Amalgamated Terminal was originally proposed for HO Scale using Carl Arendt’s definition of ‘micro-layouts’ as having a total baseboard of 4 sq. ft. or less (as referenced by @SZ ).  Several designs were proposed for micro-layout terminals using a basic 6’ x 8” footprint (I did two of them), just to what was - and was not - possible.

 

It was a particular challenge for standard gauge US outline rolling stock, so ‘old-time’ shorter stock tended to be favoured.  For UK designs, pre-grouping ideas had an advantage (as used by @Lacathedrale , though in a larger space to use S7).

 

‘Small Layouts,’ were shown separately on his website, and could be larger.  He included the original Minories as an example of a Small Layout.  I’d not seen Amalgamated Terminal as having a connection with Minories, other than perhaps the bridges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
20 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:


That’s fair comment - the Amalgamated Terminal was originally proposed for HO Scale using Carl Arendt’s definition of ‘micro-layouts’ as having a total baseboard of 4 sq. ft. or less (as referenced by @SZ ).  Several designs were proposed for micro-layout terminals using a basic 6’ x 8” footprint (I did two of them), just to what was - and was not - possible.

 

It was a particular challenge for standard gauge US outline rolling stock, so ‘old-time’ shorter stock tended to be favoured.  For UK designs, pre-grouping ideas had an advantage (as used by @Lacathedrale , though in a larger space to use S7).

 

‘Small Layouts,’ were shown separately on his website, and could be larger.  He included the original Minories as an example of a Small Layout.  I’d not seen Amalgamated Terminal as having a connection with Minories, other than perhaps the bridges.

 

I can see several Minories parallels. 3 platform, double track compact terminus. If the double slip was replaced by two Y points back to back, it is very much a Minories with the loco spur facing the other way.

 

I could see it working as a pre-grouping layout with a short trains of 4 wheelers and a tank loco. It was the specific mention of the 80' cars in the text that raised my eyebrow. I would probably want to alter the fiddle yard to have cassettes, as the loco spur would make a traverser tricky. Otherwise, there would need to be a lot of handling of stock.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the major difference is that it reverses the handedness of Minories, it never flips to a Minories shape so the Minories reverse curve into platform 1 becomes a less immediate reverse curve into platform 3 (bottom)

 

1602582447954.jpg.fec22685c2077ecf03953b4fb3acff3d.jpg

 

 

Or flipped this way, platform 1 (top)

 

1602582399925.jpg

 

 

Which looks a lot like Bastille. So the secret of Bastille is in its handedness not its continuously curved approach.

 

So the Minories offset is something of a red herring, its the handedness of it in relation to the platforms that's the issue.

 

Edited by SZ
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bastille was alot like the suburban platforms at Liverpool Street, and alot like how Freezer allegedly designed Minories - a 'jazz service' of immediate arrivals, only for a loco on shed to buffer up to the other end of the train and pull it straight out?

 

So, as a 'theory' - what can be done to better support modern traction in a Minories layout, assuming that loco-hauled services are off the cards. Holborn Viaduct had a parcels service until the 70's so we can suppose for an urban setting that we might even see some air-braked vans - but that is almost the same as any steam-era station with a freight area (minus the brake van).

 

My biggest question is 'how do we make EMU operation interesting, in the way that a steam-hauled service is by nature?' Is it even possible? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
22 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Bastille was alot like the suburban platforms at Liverpool Street, and alot like how Freezer allegedly designed Minories - a 'jazz service' of immediate arrivals, only for a loco on shed to buffer up to the other end of the train and pull it straight out?

 

So, as a 'theory' - what can be done to better support modern traction in a Minories layout, assuming that loco-hauled services are off the cards. Holborn Viaduct had a parcels service until the 70's so we can suppose for an urban setting that we might even see some air-braked vans - but that is almost the same as any steam-era station with a freight area (minus the brake van).

 

My biggest question is 'how do we make EMU operation interesting, in the way that a steam-hauled service is by nature?' Is it even possible? 

 

 

I do and enjoy operating my layout with all DMUs, or all diesel or all steam but normally a good mix.

035a.jpg.fcc38bd58e515f75b073792fb54cbdb8.jpg

 

036a.jpg.b6c0ae64e06c6c9b10586aee2143fbd2.jpg

  • Like 8
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cor, now that's not something you see very often! Your layout is a 'system' rather than a station, isn't it? I imagine that the problem of effectively having a shuttle service is less of an issue when you have a large junction and a continuous run around the room, rather than moving from the platforms directly into a traverser fiddleyard.

 

Based on the scope of the above picture, I wonder if for a D/E station you simply need to look at it from a wider perspective i.e. train-level rather than wagon- or coach-level operations. i.e. to be presented with a requirement to run trains, and then have to satisfy them with the stock and capacity you have.

 

I'm reminded of a game called RTC Kings Cross, where one plays the signaller for KX and has to route trains into and out of the platforms on a schedule, without delaying anything unduly. In some ways then, you could be playing a variant of Inglenook but with whole trains instead of single P.O. wagons. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

Based on the scope of the above picture, I wonder if for a D/E station you simply need to look at it from a wider perspective i.e. train-level rather than wagon- or coach-level operations. i.e. to be presented with a requirement to run trains, and then have to satisfy them with the stock and capacity you have.

Yes, if you try to run a MU railway like a loco & coaches railway then you'll lose a lot of the play value. But there are other ways to create operational puzzles you can try to solve, if that's what floats your boat operationally speaking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

 

My biggest question is 'how do we make EMU operation interesting, in the way that a steam-hauled service is by nature?' Is it even possible? 

 

 

 

Motorised luggage vans attaching to/detaching from trains?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2020 at 18:12, SZ said:

Came across this, a micro that looks Minories

 

Amalg.gif

 

https://www.carendt.com/micro-layout-design-gallery/passenger-lines/

 

6 feet x 8 inches with all the essential elements, even the bridge, while also eliminating the reverse curve.

 

 

That was the basic plan which I adapted for Blacklade - see my earlier post just above . (The blog's here Blacklade (Artamon Square)  though the most recent few posts are ideas for other layout projects

 

To address the various comments made on this plan:

 

- t-b-g is right to flag the question of train length 

On 13/10/2020 at 08:41, t-b-g said:

Another problem with that plan is the train length. One of the fiddle yard roads is about 18" long clear of the point blades. Yet the write up suggests using a couple of scale length 80' cars in HO.

 

I don't see it as practical to operate as drawn. I would want the platform roads and fiddle yard with an extra foot length, making it 8ft long.

 

For the RMWeb challenge I had a "budget" of 6 square feet , and I was working with a version of the plan using boards that narrowed at the middle.  So I extended the length to 8'6" , meaning an extra 15" at each end

 

I moved the platform so there is a long - and very narrow - back platform , and a centre platform that is only used from one side because you can't meet Board of Trade regs for minimum width on an island platform 1818545276_DSCN0638(800x600).jpg.18a1c44f5976a93b748803bf2e9d7162.jpg

 

There is a crossover from the centre road to the front (visible in the foreground), so that units can reach the fuelling point at the front of the fiddle yard board. This meant I could drop back to a single slip not a double slip - and as an unexpected bonus I found I had acquired a run-round loop in the station throat

 

I used the extra length to fit in an additional point and road in the fiddle yard

 

This means the front platform should take 2 Pacers , or a Pacer + 153.

The centre platform will take 2 x 23m vehicles (155/156/158) or a 31 + 2 x 50' vans

The back platform will take 3 x 23m vehicles (156+ 153) or 31 + 2 coaches + second 31 for Minories-style operation of a loco-hauled substitute for a DMU diagram. It will - with some discomfort - just hold 2 x 2 car DMU if they are 57' shortframe units

 

Running as kettles "funny trains " c 1958, all sets are 2 coach, and tank engines and diesels are preferred (ok a J11 is acceptable. The ROD was a bit big, and took a dislike to a dodgy bit of track in platform 3...) To be honest a 2 coach set of 64' stock is quite awkward in Plat 1 and downright too long in the centre platform . Hence my liking for 50' LNWR and 48' MR Ratio kits. Two 57' coaches are ok - Set 3 runs as 51' Gresley CL + 57' LMS non-gangway Brake 3rd 

 

3 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

 

 

So, as a 'theory' - what can be done to better support modern traction in a Minories layout, assuming that loco-hauled services are off the cards. Holborn Viaduct had a parcels service until the 70's so we can suppose for an urban setting that we might even see some air-braked vans - but that is almost the same as any steam-era station with a freight area (minus the brake van).

 

My biggest question is 'how do we make EMU operation interesting, in the way that a steam-hauled service is by nature?' Is it even possible? 

 

 

My approach was to go for joining and splitting of units, with DCC being a design feature of the layout.

 

The catch has been getting suitable stock in place. The Pacers need rewheeling and a complex DCC installation, as well as other work. I'm hoping finally to finish the first Pacer during the pandemic ...  The 128 will open up 3 car Modernisation Plan DMU formations. The 158s won't really work in multiple with anything. When I tried a 150 + 153 lashup, the Kadees parted and they drifted down the layout at very different speeds.... The 155 and 156 both need some level of rebuild and coupling installation..

 

The loco-hauled substitute; the parcels , with a tail van on the first and last DMU ; and an engineers train to run round , add significantly to interest in the 1980s period . A loco delivers a single TTA to the fuelling point. This gives options to work with . There is usually only one road vacant - so you shuffle what you can into the vacant slot...

  • Like 7
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...