Theory of General Minories

[Nearholmer]

This instantly shouts "Charford" and "Berrow" to me.

 

Hoping that you are an RM subscriber, with access to The Old Testaments:

 

Charford - https://reader.exacteditions.com/issues/95277/page/38

 

Berrow - https://reader.exacteditions.com/issues/95229/page/12?term=berrow

 

Both of these outgrew their basic origins as time went by, so if you are searching, look for the "classic" iterations.

 

Personally, I think that a "disappearing" FY does help with the suspension of disbelief, and I think the micro-terminus in front of it would be the ideal haunt for a Terrier and Balloon, or one of those P-sandwich motor trains that the SECR created and, if the bug bit, you could create any number of LBSCR and SECR motor trains, petrol, and steam railcars. If it turned out that there wasn't room for an actual micro-terminus, you could simply have a through station/halt, with track disappearing under a bridge or into a tunnel. Think the Selsdon line, which alternated between LBSCR and SECR operation, or the East Southsea line, which alternated LBSCR-LSWR ....... maybe yours could rotate between all three, to maximise the number of faintly silly motor trains that could be used, while the main (Minories/Seironim) terminus remained SECR with a straight face.

 

I reckon this concept works even better now, with a few pre-grouping things available r-t-r, than it did in the 50s.

 

Of course, you could do similar in Coarse-0, it would fit ...........

 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Lacathedrale]

I'd not seen Berrow but was very much inspired by Charford - even to the point of looking at Malachite.

 

A single line branch coming off just before the throat would provide space for a Berrow-style Micro-terminus of sorts, although it does stink to high heaven of a ripe Stilton!

 

In some ways the 90 degree curved section is something of a blessing as it enforces a separation between the main layout elements. While I'm not sure I'm convinced by a terminus-to-FY layout for a home setting, the addition of the scenic section infront of the fiddle area here gives us two 'real' destinations as well as a catch-all FY.

 

I imagine in this arrangement that if there were more than one operator, one would be responsible for Stilton station - probably some kind of shunting puzzle variant - and acting as signalman for the FY. For the Mainline station itself (Cheddar?), the additional siding off the throat (achieved due to the neccesary rotation of the Minories plan to bring the exit forward to clear the doorway) as a dock platform will be very helpful - newpapers, perishables or through-coaches for the branch line both inbound and outband can be added and removed as neccesary, as well as a place to store coaches that would be used to bolster existing sets. This is a much more collaborative than combatative layout operation.

 

Your comment re: Coarse 0 has me starstruck - it was with much regret I loosed my SR Olive stock back to the world....

 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2021 by Lacathedrale

[Harlequin]

CJF's later Minories variants had a separate headshunt alongside P3 that fed into a larger kickback goods depot. If you did that here, with the scene in front of the FY being the kickbacks goods yard, then both scenic sides would be part of the same location, and more operationally connected. One person wouldn't have to suspend disbelief moving between the scenes and it could still support two operators when needed.

 

Goods traffic provides more variety of stock.

 

It would also be slightly less cheesy and the junction would be less dodgy... (BTW: Are there any famous South Eastern cheeses to use for station names?)

 

If the main lines are hidden on the lifting section then you could consider having a bit of storage on there too (maybe just a loco spur) to help introduce a bit of magic and possibly a facing crossover into the FY to make it more flexible without losing. any capacity.

 

Edited November 26, 2021 by Harlequin

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Hi William, my first thought was to ask if the bedroom photo is from your new house? (Just curious as I found the thread you did on a bedroom layout very interesting a bit back).  

 

In terms of this proposal, I must admit that - while I can follow the logic used - the ‘reverse’ arrangement whereby the L-shape crosses the doorway instead of being on the other side of the room is taking a bit of getting my head round.  Putting operational considerations aside, I wonder if it would just look a bit odd (in what is after all a shared use room)?  I’d be inclined to see if something could be done to work round the chimney breast.  You may have tried this already of course.

 

A couple of thoughts if I may, as comments are invited:

 

2 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

I've been slowly building up stock (and motivation) for Katharine Street, a suburban terminus in N scale for some time, but the child in me is craving something more 'system'-like and stylised to operate on. Not quite Coarse O-gauge levels, but where I'm OK to stomach compromised train and track lengths, potentially with improbable loco combinations (within reason!) and ready-to-plonk components.

 

Way back on Page 43 I found pictures of @t-b-g's Mansfield Road as well as @Harlequin's Seironim - and it got me thinking...

 

In addition to Katharine Street, I have attempted two not-Minories in 4mm/ft. The first was a suburban branch terminus called Godstone Road. It got to the point of painted baseboards, platforms and a backscene. However, half the throat pointwork was 'assumed' on the other side of the scenic break - and every single shunt move had to occur with train moving 'off scene' onto the traverser. To compound the awkwardness of this, the double track of the layout was not matched to the track spacing of the traverser and actually physically going to the traverser required vaulting a horizontal roofing beam.

 

 

I tried again with a different prototype - an SECR plan based on Holborn Viaduct. The throat was based on Buckingham GCR's throat (fairly simplifed!) and if it were entirely hand laid, it would have been fine. However, I tried to combine hand laying with Peco track geometry retrospectively - and it was a disaster, though the Fiddle Yard was complete, the rest was sold off.

 

<no pictures of this one, didn't last long enough!>

 

I think then, it's time to revisit an actual Minories plan and consider it as close to verbatim as is feasible. This is the space I have available:

 

 

I had initially considered a layout along one wall, but I am essentially limited to 8' total length along either wall due to the location of the door - hardly enough for a layout in N let alone 00! I know I can re-hang the door, remove it, etc. but I want the layout to be harmonious with my space, not completely dominating it.

 

So, though it feels a little strange, I think the most practical solution is for a two-board layout which spans the door with a removable curve or board:

 

 

Now, to bring this back - I have been able to fit a Minories vs. Seironim plan in this space:

 

 

This can fit a pacific and three Mk1's to any of the platforms, but I would be modelling this in the pre-group era so four and six wheeled coaches and small locomotives would be the order of the day.  Using large radius Peco Bullhead turnouts, one station could be built to completion while the other was bare boards, etc. - one layout could behave as a fiddle yard for the other, or otherwise with two operators as a game of train 'pong'.

 

As a side-note it is just about possible to extend the loco spur on Seironim around as an inner loop to connect up to an engine facility to allow trains to be turned in both stations.

 

 

However, I can't help but wonder if there is a better solution.Bear in mind that the mainline might be limited to a flat surface with a retaining wall or embankment behind! I'm not interested particularly in exhibiting the layout, but will be built to be technically portable. I am leaning towards a fiddleyard-less design, with another scenic section of some variety instead, even as mundane as an engine servicing facility and carriage sheds. I am hoping for 'storage' of at least three trains [worth of stock] beyond the borders of Minories.

 

- the essential question is: If you had 4' of plain double-track mainline and 6' of space for a FY/other destination beyond the original 7' Minories board - what would you do with it?

 

 

I think my personal response to your ‘essential question’ would be to look again at 2mm scale, knowing it’s one of your interests.  I’m not sure 4’ of double track mainline is going to be convincing for a terminus - terminus scheme in 4mm scale?

 

Part of the genius of Minories, is the ability for trains to pass in the station throat - one arriving as one departs.  With such a short main line, I fear this feature might not work very well, and you’d end up running trains one way, then the other, then the other.  For a branch line / heritage line that might be fine, or it might be exactly what you want to do, of course.

 

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

This instantly shouts "Charford" and "Berrow" to me.

 

Hoping that you are an RM subscriber, with access to The Old Testaments:

 

Charford - https://reader.exacteditions.com/issues/95277/page/38

 

Berrow - https://reader.exacteditions.com/issues/95229/page/12?term=berrow

 

Both of these outgrew their basic origins as time went by, so if you are searching, look for the "classic" iterations.

 

Personally, I think that a "disappearing" FY does help with the suspension of disbelief, and I think the micro-terminus in front of it would be the ideal haunt for a Terrier and Balloon, or one of those P-sandwich motor trains that the SECR created and, if the bug bit, you could create any number of LBSCR and SECR motor trains, petrol, and steam railcars. If it turned out that there wasn't room for an actual micro-terminus, you could simply have a through station/halt, with track disappearing under a bridge or into a tunnel. Think the Selsdon line, which alternated between LBSCR and SECR operation, or the East Southsea line, which alternated LBSCR-LSWR ....... maybe yours could rotate between all three, to maximise the number of faintly silly motor trains that could be used, while the main (Minories/Seironim) terminus remained SECR with a straight face.

 

I reckon this concept works even better now, with a few pre-grouping things available r-t-r, than it did in the 50s.

 

Of course, you could do similar in Coarse-0, it would fit ...........

 

 

 

 

Going the other way then, while I note you said: “Not quite Coarse O-gauge” in your opening post, the next comment: “where I'm OK to stomach compromised train and track lengths” does rather suggest Coarse O, as @Nearholmer  suggests.  It’s recently been demonstrated (more than once) here in this Forum that it can be made to work, albeit in a continuous run format.

 

32 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

I'd not seen Berrow but was very much inspired by Charford - even to the point of looking at Malachite.

 

A single line branch coming off just before the throat would provide space for a Berrow-style Micro-terminus of sorts, although it does stink to high heaven of a ripe Stilton!

 

In some ways the 90 degree curved section is something of a blessing as it enforces a separation between the main layout elements. While I'm not sure I'm convinced by a terminus-to-FY layout for a home setting, the addition of the scenic section infront of the fiddle area here gives us two 'real' destinations as well as a catch-all FY.

 

I imagine in this arrangement that if there were more than one operator, one would be responsible for Stilton station - probably some kind of shunting puzzle variant - and acting as signalman for the FY. For the Mainline station itself (Cheddar?), the additional siding off the throat (achieved due to the neccesary rotation of the Minories plan to bring the exit forward to clear the doorway) as a dock platform will be very helpful - newpapers, perishables or through-coaches for the branch line both inbound and outband can be added and removed as neccesary, as well as a place to store coaches that would be used to bolster existing sets. This is a much more collaborative than combatative layout operation.

 

Your comment re: Coarse 0 has me starstruck - it was with much regret I loosed my SR Olive stock back to the world....

 

 

 

 

The comment that jumps out at me from this piece if the phrase: “This is a much more collaborative than combative layout” - I like that concept and think it’s something well worth pursuing, and could help break out of the ‘ping-pong’ operation that might be the end result of the initial suggestions.

 

Just some thoughts in response to the postings.  Hope that’s OK, Keith.

[t-b-g]

13 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

I'd not seen Berrow but was very much inspired by Charford - even to the point of looking at Malachite.

 

A single line branch coming off just before the throat would provide space for a Berrow-style Micro-terminus of sorts, although it does stink to high heaven of a ripe Stilton!

 

In some ways the 90 degree curved section is something of a blessing as it enforces a separation between the main layout elements. While I'm not sure I'm convinced by a terminus-to-FY layout for a home setting, the addition of the scenic section infront of the fiddle area here gives us two 'real' destinations as well as a catch-all FY.

 

I imagine in this arrangement that if there were more than one operator, one would be responsible for Stilton station - probably some kind of shunting puzzle variant - and acting as signalman for the FY. For the Mainline station itself (Cheddar?), the additional siding off the throat (achieved due to the neccesary rotation of the Minories plan to bring the exit forward to clear the doorway) as a dock platform will be very helpful - newpapers, perishables or through-coaches for the branch line both inbound and outband can be added and removed as neccesary, as well as a place to store coaches that would be used to bolster existing sets. This is a much more collaborative than combatative layout operation.

 

Your comment re: Coarse 0 has me starstruck - it was with much regret I loosed my SR Olive stock back to the world....

 

 

 

 

Out of the two options, I very much prefer the fiddle yard plus smaller terminus.

 

I am working on something similar myself. My new Manchester EM layout is having a smaller cousin to sit in front of the fiddle yard. Having a choice of destinations opens up a great number of possible operational choices that are simply not there with the terminus to terminus or terminus to straight fiddle yard.

 

Even if you have no goods facilities at the bigger terminus, you can work a goods train in and reverse it to the smaller terminus. You can drop off horse boxes etc. to be worked up the branch, or through carriages to attach to the branch set.

 

You could do all that with a straight terminus to fiddle yard but in my experience, it is a lot more satisfying visually when that other destination is modelled and visible.

[john new]

Why not just fit a double slip for the branch into the first crossover off the platforms (the incoming line), plus perhaps a further access road alongside it into the single platform? That gives the branch access into all the platforms just as the main line and, if fitting the extra line, also an independent push-pull/DMU/EMU access to/from what becomes a dedicated branch platform without fouling the main.

[Nearholmer]

There is a very posh cheese shop in the converted goods shed at Canterbury West station, if that helps, but the traditional cheese in Kent was, I think, that horrible ‘cottage cheese’ that is brewed in a disgusting looking old rag, left hanging in the larder over a dish.

 

Aside from the cottage variety, I’m very partial to cheese, so don’t struggle with the highly implausible “kickback terminus”, although it looks less implausible when mocked-up as a through station.

[Pacific231G]

2 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

I'd not seen Berrow but was very much inspired by Charford - even to the point of looking at Malachite.

 

A single line branch coming off just before the throat would provide space for a Berrow-style Micro-terminus of sorts, although it does stink to high heaven of a ripe Stilton!

 

In some ways the 90 degree curved section is something of a blessing as it enforces a separation between the main layout elements. While I'm not sure I'm convinced by a terminus-to-FY layout for a home setting, the addition of the scenic section infront of the fiddle area here gives us two 'real' destinations as well as a catch-all FY.

 

I imagine in this arrangement that if there were more than one operator, one would be responsible for Stilton station - probably some kind of shunting puzzle variant - and acting as signalman for the FY. For the Mainline station itself (Cheddar?), the additional siding off the throat (achieved due to the neccesary rotation of the Minories plan to bring the exit forward to clear the doorway) as a dock platform will be very helpful - newpapers, perishables or through-coaches for the branch line both inbound and outband can be added and removed as neccesary, as well as a place to store coaches that would be used to bolster existing sets. This is a much more collaborative than combatative layout operation.

 

Your comment re: Coarse 0 has me starstruck - it was with much regret I loosed my SR Olive stock back to the world....

 

 

 

A reversing terminus does have a lot going for it in terms of play value operational interest particularly if you're modelling the era of through carriages and the secondary line is still important enough to warrant them. It's not entirely ripe Camembert (more malodorous cheeses are available) as there are and were a number of prototypes. 

In Britain the obvious example was Fort William where the trains going on to Mallaig lost their sleepers and diners and sometimes gained a tail load or even an observation carriage (and vice-versa) all in a terminus with  just two points (Inglenook Sidings writ large), The north coast of Scotland went one better with Thurso still a reversing terminus for Wick and Wick once a reversing terminus for the Lybster light railway. There were other examples elsewhere, notably Deauville-Trouville with a kickback line to Dives-Cabourg that used to have through carriages from the fashionable Paris-Deauville expresses. 

I've got the timetable articles for Berrow and, even though too small for through carriages, it's clear how much extra East Brent provided in terms of operation as well as hiding the fiddle yard. "If the layout is going to be left set up in a shared family room such as the lounge it should look attractive. A set of bare storage sidings, with the best will in the world, is unlikely to achieve that" (Mac Pyrke RM Sept 1958)*

The late Andy Hart's H0 Achaux had a secondary electrified line coming into the rear platform which added a whole lot of carriage bashing as well as allowing him to use some electric locos without having to add overhead knitting to the whole station. In that case both the double track main line and the secondary single track line went to the fiddle yard.

Unfortunately I never did operate Achaux as my interests at the time were purely NG but probably my favourite exhibition layout to operate has been Giles Barnabe's O-16.5 Puerto Paseo. In that case, the "twig" went to the docks (just a siding or two in the fiddle yard) but it added enormously to the operational potential and I could happily operate the layout at exhibitions for several hours without wanting to chew my own foot off (The median time to foot chew is my personal measure of exhibition operability!) 

 

* I currently have my own terminus-fiddle yard up for operation in my  "studio" room. I've put up the low screen I use to hide the FY for exhibitions and it's remarkable how much  more enjoyable that makes things as the trains appear from and disappear to the coulisse (the French modellers' word for a fiddle yard taken from the theatre where it means "backstage") 

Edited November 26, 2021 by Pacific231G

[Lacathedrale]

Dear all, nothing pleases me more than batting around layout plans and ideas, so unless someone tells me to stop I'd love to continue it here. Thank you all for the continued advice and interesting thoughts.

 

@john new - the branch in this case already has access to all platforms, those on the left are a dock and loco pilot siding, but I see what you mean, like this?

 

 

Though it saves a little on space I'm not sure I like it, I'll need to mull it over.

 

@Harlequin - I did actually sketch out a modular minories in roughly the same space in 2mm, and funnily enough the Berrow branch's twig is alot like CJF's modular minories goods depot. We've already spoken about Ewer St. and how that works as a cramped city goods depot - particularly the conversation about perishables, apparently it also had quite a whiff. Slipcote is a local cheese, so that'll do for the twig in whatever form, and St. Giles is local enough for the terminus. Here's P3 with an added runaround and spur around to Slipcote Lane Goods:

 

 

I'm not sure I want to make the lift-out section any more precarious than it already is by adding pointwork there, though. Though it certainly is more logically cohesive I am also not 100% sold on the idea that operational/visual connection is more important than having two discreet locations given the operations-focused nature of the endeavour. By including another station (as trite as it is) we can have passenger services on the two lines interact in a loosely coupled architecture. If the line is a goods-only depot it is synchronous with the rest of the layout.

 

Though I imagine the Slipcote branch would only justify a regular one or two-coach service, peak-time through coaches and covered wagons can be prototypically moved from the mainline onto the branch platform/s and vice versa. Slipcote Grange could even justify a 'real' goods train - particularly with a nearby gasworks or ... cheese dairy.

 

I think I'm aligned to @t-b-g's thinking on this one - but then I am superbly jealous of Mansfield Road so may not be the best judge on that count.

 

@Keith Addenbrooke in one hand, an operational scheme which pits two operators against each other in friendly competition (images of ringing bells to call attention to pending inbound trains) I think would be very engaging as long as it was fun, but the metaphor of 'ping-pong' and 'batting between' is probably apt for a design where there are only two destinations that are facing off against each other over a short length of track.

 

I had (and do) consider N for this, but frankly - I'm lazy. Every time I have embarked on a project which requires significant upfront effort to get anything going then it just stalls out completely before it has a chance to gain any kind of inertia. Hence my resolution to go with 00 for the range of stock available, and use Peco bullhead to get the bloody track laid before I waste another decade talking about it!

[Lacathedrale]

@Pacific231G I have in my hand the two articles of Model Railway Constructor that feature Acheaux, I was initially turned on to it by @Dr Gerbil-Fritters way back when.  Among many other diversions I also spent some time trying to see if I could get SNCF H0 to work, but with decrepit Hornby Achaux or brand new 400 euro models being the only options it was dropped like a bad habit. German H0 on the other hand....

 

As an aside I can't figure any way for the layout to fit along the other two walls without blocking the door and losing the branch, whatever it would end up being. One potential addition could be a 'straight' bridge piece to connect St. Giles to Slipcote Grange - so it could be set up in a straight line in the dining room or even (gasp) exhibited...

[t-b-g]

17 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Dear all, nothing pleases me more than batting around layout plans and ideas, so unless someone tells me to stop I'd love to continue it here. Thank you all for the continued advice and interesting thoughts.

 

@john new - the branch in this case already has access to all platforms, those on the left are a dock and loco pilot siding, but I see what you mean, like this?

 

 

Though it saves a little on space I'm not sure I like it, I'll need to mull it over.

 

@Harlequin - I did actually sketch out a modular minories in roughly the same space in 2mm, and funnily enough the Berrow branch's twig is alot like CJF's modular minories goods depot. We've already spoken about Ewer St. and how that works as a cramped city goods depot - particularly the conversation about perishables, apparently it also had quite a whiff. Slipcote is a local cheese, so that'll do for the twig in whatever form, and St. Giles is local enough for the terminus. Here's P3 with an added runaround and spur around to Slipcote Lane Goods:

 

 

I'm not sure I want to make the lift-out section any more precarious than it already is by adding pointwork there, though. Though it certainly is more logically cohesive I am also not 100% sold on the idea that operational/visual connection is more important than having two discreet locations given the operations-focused nature of the endeavour. By including another station (as trite as it is) we can have passenger services on the two lines interact in a loosely coupled architecture. If the line is a goods-only depot it is synchronous with the rest of the layout.

 

Though I imagine the Slipcote branch would only justify a regular one or two-coach service, peak-time through coaches and covered wagons can be prototypically moved from the mainline onto the branch platform/s and vice versa. Slipcote Grange could even justify a 'real' goods train - particularly with a nearby gasworks or ... cheese dairy.

 

I think I'm aligned to @t-b-g's thinking on this one - but then I am superbly jealous of Mansfield Road so may not be the best judge on that count.

 

@Keith Addenbrooke in one hand, an operational scheme which pits two operators against each other in friendly competition (images of ringing bells to call attention to pending inbound trains) I think would be very engaging as long as it was fun, but the metaphor of 'ping-pong' and 'batting between' is probably apt for a design where there are only two destinations that are facing off against each other over a short length of track.

 

I had (and do) consider N for this, but frankly - I'm lazy. Every time I have embarked on a project which requires significant upfront effort to get anything going then it just stalls out completely before it has a chance to gain any kind of inertia. Hence my resolution to go with 00 for the range of stock available, and use Peco bullhead to get the bloody track laid before I waste another decade talking about it!

 

One thing that works really well on Buckingham and which I pinched for Mansfield was to take the two main lines down to a single track entry (hidden from view) to the fiddle yard. It does remove the opportunity to run an arrival and a departure at the same time but with the branch, you could still run a main line and a branch train together. Having the first point as a double slip, then with two further points gives you 4 equal length sidings, so timetabling is easier as any train can go into any available road. A double slip plus a 3 way gives you three roads of one length plus a longer one.

 

As drawn, the train coloured green would have to depart wrong line, so that top fiddle yard road is quite difficult to use realistically.

 

If your fiddle yard roads are long enough for a train plus 2 locos, you can work the fiddle yard with very little fiddling. A train departs and the loco is trapped at the end of the fiddle yard. Later, a light engine goes from the station to the off stage shed for turning but in reality backs down tender first (tank locos obviously not a problem) onto the end of the train in the fiddle yard. Later, at arrives again in the station. Then the loco that was trapped at the fiddle yard end comes "off shed" to back down onto a train in the station. You have a few locos pointing each way rotating round different trains and it becomes really effective and does away with much fiddle yard work. You could do it for goods trains but you would need to have a brake van at each end, which is not too silly. 

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

I believe a Mr Jenkinson of Marthwaite had a rather nice branch terminus at one time, with a small twig leading to a tiny station with a limestone loader. 

 

Small pax shuttle, (1P and a push/pull coach I recall) and decent freight  traffic ensued.

[RJS1977]

I've used the single track fiddle yard approach as well, which works quite well (not least for simplifying the electrics!) and whilst it means I can't pass trains on the main line, in practice I don't think I could have done so anyway - as there is only one of me! The single track approach followed by a fan of sidings also allows me to use the reversible lift-off fiddle yard that CJF attributed to Peter Denny. It's also possible to build a 'digital Crispin' using a laptop and MERG CBUS units to control the fiddle yard points so the only time you need to touch the fiddle yard is to reverse it.

 

That said, I'm quite taken with the no-fiddle yard design originally presented, even if it does limit access 'to the rest of the world'.

 

One other thought I had immediately on seeing the photo of the room was that there appears to be a space 4-6" wide behind the door that could be used as a small fiddle yard or carriage sidings (assuming of course that the layout isn't built at door handle height!

[Chimer]

It seems obvious to me that if you build a terminus to terminus setup (as opposed to branch and twig), joining the termini together without a scenic break blows any illusion of reality.  Whereas with a break, each can function as a conventional (if not very efficient) fiddle yard for the other on occasions when you want to play it that way, allowing for greater operational variety (but perhaps less amusement) than two operators playing ping-pong.   If the two termini are built to represent different regions and/or periods (e.g. Devon between the wars and Lancashire today),  you can still play ping-pong, but also have the options of two completely different realistic terminus to FY scenarios, albeit requiring stock substitution between sessions ....

 

If you've the room to include stretches of open main line before the break (which La Cat doesn't), great, but I reckon you really don't want to let the eye follow a train from one terminus to the other.

 

For me, terminus to terminus always brings to mind Sundown and Sprawling ..... though it does what I think it shouldn't !

 

Railway Modeller - November 1963 (exacteditions.com)

 

Edited November 26, 2021 by Chimer
Trying to make link work - failed :-(

[Lacathedrale]

@t-b-g the FY previously illustrated was fairly notional - including your suggestions it seems a fairly competent four-road Minories FY in 7', not specifically relating to my case:

 

I had never considered the dodge you have suggested about double-ended trains, that's bloody perfect! Especially if the sequence starts with an up train departing St. Giles to set everything correctly for following moves.

 

With that in mind, all four FY roads will take a three 54' bogie coaches rake plus two 4-6-0's. If we're talking about Mk1's then both bottom sidings can take it, but the upper two are limited to one of the two locos being tank engines.

 

@RJS1977 I think I would definitely aim for going quite old-school on this one - DC with block sections powered by signals a-la Buckingham. I can't think of a more effective way to ensure trains obey the signals! There is indeed a narrow space behind the door but at 5" wide an inaccessible if the door is blocked open, I'm not sure how useful it would be?

 

[t-b-g]

50 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

@t-b-g the FY previously illustrated was fairly notional - including your suggestions it seems a fairly competent four-road Minories FY in 7', not specifically relating to my case:

 

I had never considered the dodge you have suggested about double-ended trains, that's bloody perfect! Especially if the sequence starts with an up train departing St. Giles to set everything correctly for following moves.

 

With that in mind, all four FY roads will take a three 54' bogie coaches rake plus two 4-6-0's. If we're talking about Mk1's then both bottom sidings can take it, but the upper two are limited to one of the two locos being tank engines.

 

@RJS1977 I think I would definitely aim for going quite old-school on this one - DC with block sections powered by signals a-la Buckingham. I can't think of a more effective way to ensure trains obey the signals! There is indeed a narrow space behind the door but at 5" wide an inaccessible if the door is blocked open, I'm not sure how useful it would be?

 

 

I can't remember reading about or seeing that dodge in the fiddle yard, so I may have made it up! It occurred to me after a stint working the Mansfield fiddle yard lifting locos off and turning them round, only to put other ones on again to go to the station light engine. If so, it may actually be a rare original idea from me but I am sure that somebody else will point out a layout that has done it previously that I might have either seen at a show or read about. It is rare for any idea in the hobby to be completely new.

 

Just another thought. If you move the siding at the small terminus to the other side and run it off the loop parallel to the fiddle yard tracks, you make a nice little two road yard on that side with a triangular space for vehicles etc. and leave a better space for a platform and station at the front edge. There might even be room for a short headshunt so you could have a goods shunting and a passenger train there at the same time.

[jcm@gwr]

I noticed that you've already thought about St. Giles and Slipcote,

for the added cheesiness.

There's also Duddleswell, Mayfield and Winterdale Shaw!

[Nearholmer]

Duddleswell has a cheese??!! Its only three cottages and a tea-room! (I presume the tea room is still in business).

 

All these supposed Kent and Sussex cheeses are modern "foodie" inventions, which isn't to say they don't taste good, merely that they've come into being since I departed the locale of my youth.

 

Mayfield might be good though, in that the SECR had running rights there, and it references Maybank, which was the first well known terminus to FY layout, and popularised the format.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 26/11/2021 at 19:13, Chimer said:

It seems obvious to me that if you build a terminus to terminus setup (as opposed to branch and twig), joining the termini together without a scenic break blows any illusion of reality.  Whereas with a break, each can function as a conventional (if not very efficient) fiddle yard for the other on occasions when you want to play it that way, allowing for greater operational variety (but perhaps less amusement) than two operators playing ping-pong.   If the two termini are built to represent different regions and/or periods (e.g. Devon between the wars and Lancashire today),  you can still play ping-pong, but also have the options of two completely different realistic terminus to FY scenarios, albeit requiring stock substitution between sessions ....

 

If you've the room to include stretches of open main line before the break (which La Cat doesn't), great, but I reckon you really don't want to let the eye follow a train from one terminus to the other.

 

For me, terminus to terminus always brings to mind Sundown and Sprawling ..... though it does what I think it shouldn't !

 

Railway Modeller - November 1963 (exacteditions.com)

 

 

Hi Chris, I think it is possible to design a compact, ‘open’ terminus to terminus scheme that looks OK.  The key thing is not to see both stations at the same time, so a train still looks like it’s going somewhere.  At least an L (as here) or ideally a U shape helps.  I tried one out as an idea recently in Narrow Gauge and feedback indicated it looked OK in the mock-up photos I took.

 

As per the suggestions above, the ‘big win’ was room to spread out the main station quite nicely, but the main difference was I was looking at a single track line for slow speed running and using (relatively) wide baseboards with more room for scenery either side of the track.  I had almost two train lengths between the stations, and shunting did not encroach onto the running line at either end.  The prototypes the scheme was based on have hardly any overbridges and no tunnels, so it had to be open.  For relaxed branch line-style operation it would have been OK - but it was very much not a Minories scheme for intensive operation:

 

 

That said, I think the branch and twig ideas being developed do a good job of satisfying the “collaborative rather than combative” principle @Lacathedrale suggested, and provide a good visual  ‘cover story’ for more intensive main line workings into and out of a Fiddle Yard in a multi-use room.

 

Edited April 8, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Picture from my Narrow Gauge Layout thread

[Regularity]

Make the second station look like a through station, with lines appearing to go under a bridge, but operate it as a terminus.

[Nearholmer]

Yes, I prefer that, especially if you can have enough room for a deep cutting, in which a motor train can lurk, beyond the bridge.

 

I’m seeing St Giles (Slipcote Road) as being a suburb, where St Giles & Slipcote Albion (nickname “The Cheesemongers”) have their ground (painted on the backscene), so that on cold Saturday afternoons when there is a home game, the motor train has to shuttle to-and-fro for all its worth to keep up with demand. The away supporters have chartered a train, but that can only come so far as the main terminus, of course.

[Zomboid]

Presumably St Giles & Slipcote Albion play in yellow & white, and their stadium is built over some subterranean railway sidings...

 

I like the idea, cheesy though it is, as it squeezes about as much operation into the space as you're likely to get. I guess that's why it's so cheesy, ultimately.

 

If freight operation isn't critical, then perhaps in the shadow of the stadium (Dairy Lane?) there could be the carriage sidings associated with the terminus.

[Nearholmer]

The ground is at Curd Way, named after Sir Algernon Curd, local benefactor and MP.

[St Enodoc]

45 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

The ground is at Curd Way, named after Sir Algernon Curd, local benefactor and MP.

Nicknamed "Spider" after an incident in his youth with one Miss Muffet.

[Nearholmer]

The Cheesemongers are probably in the Southern League, First Division, so their ground won’t be very fancy, rather like this probably.

 

 

No floodlights, and I think matches kicked-off at midday.

Northampton Town and Swindon Town were in this league, and in 1909 the former presented the latter, who did well in the FA Cup I think, a wonderful Gauge 1 train made by Bassett-Lowke, a County 4-4-0 named “Swindon Town” and clerestory coaches with the locations, dates and results of fixtures painted on the compartment doors.