Theory of General Minories

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

I do believe that's S W Stevens-Stratten's layout as featured extensively in my 1979 Model Railway Constructor Annual

[Pacific231G]

5 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Sticking with that 30" minimum radius, the point at the "eastern" end could be a LH curved point rather than an LH medium radius. That should save about 4" of length.

I was sticking to the BRMSB minimum of 36 inch radius for points as it seems to have served quite well but yes you could and a few inches can make all the difference. If you wanted to narrow the station board you could also reverse the loco spur and put it immediately after the final crossover thus giving a turnover loco immediate access to all three platforms. 

Going back to Steve's train ferry idea. This might be of some interest .

 

This is an 0 scale model based on Dunkerque's original train ferry berth built by members of the Longeau MRC (Amiens)  I took  these photos at the Baie de Somme railways gala in 2006 but I think the model's been to a couple of British exhibtions. They only modelled enough of the train ferry itself to slide in front of the "Gare Maritime" and dock in the berth. The ferry was actually pushed in and out  with something like a broom handle (decidedly lo-tech but they were very adept at getting it to line up properly) Being 1:43 scale half a ferry made it quite a large model but in OO or H0 it would be perfectly possible to do the same and have the train ferry  berth some way down the dock so not in  front of most of the marine station.

The Longeau model is probably slightly anachronistic as the rolling stock seems to come from a rather earlier epoch  than the first civilian cross-channel train ferries in 1924 (Harwich-Zeebrugge) and 1936 (Dover-Dunkerque with the Night Ferry)

 

 

[Harlequin]

Steve S said he was investigating a throat-on-a-curve but his long platforms will almost certainly impose a very shallow angle on them and the connection to the rest of the system is not angled at all. So, this is much more like the traditional linear Minories design, I think.

Depending on how much space is available some reverse curves may be unavoidable.

Edited May 30, 2020 by Harlequin

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

1 hour ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

I do believe that's S W Stevens-Stratten's layout as featured extensively in my 1979 Model Railway Constructor Annual

 

 

 

 

 

And all in a 14'6" x 8'6" garage...

 

An almost perfect plan in my book.

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

I was sticking to the BRMSB minimum of 36 inch radius for points as it seems to have served quite well but yes you could and a few inches can make all the difference. If you wanted to narrow the station board you could also reverse the loco spur and put it immediately after the final crossover thus giving a turnover loco immediate access to all three platforms. 

Going back to Steve's train ferry idea. This might be of some interest .

 

This is an 0 scale model based on Dunkerque's original train ferry berth built by members of the Longeau MRC (Amiens)  I took  these photos at the Baie de Somme railways gala in 2006 but I think the model's been to a couple of British exhibtions. They only modelled enough of the train ferry itself to slide in front of the "Gare Maritime" and dock in the berth. The ferry was actually pushed in and out  with something like a broom handle (decidedly lo-tech but they were very adept at getting it to line up properly) Being 1:43 scale half a ferry made it quite a large model but in OO or H0 it would be perfectly possible to do the same and have the train ferry  berth some way down the dock so not in  front of most of the marine station.

The Longeau model is probably slightly anachronistic as the rolling stock seems to come from a rather earlier epoch  than the first civilian cross-channel train ferries in 1924 (Harwich-Zeebrugge) and 1936 (Dover-Dunkerque with the Night Ferry)

 

 

Love that. I think that the rolling stock would be the work of Pierre Miguel, a railwayman who is/was based at Longueau although originally from the South. A great character who plays/played in a pipe band and would often turn up to exhibitions in full Highland regalia.

[Joseph_Pestell]

3 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

 

 

 

 

And all in a 14'6" x 8'6" garage...

 

An almost perfect plan in my book.

 

I like the basic format but I wouldn't bother with "Reigate".

 

I built something very similar for a customer back in the early 90s. He had two sons and they wanted plenty of operating capacity which this sort of scheme gives. I did manage to get longer platforms at the terminus and a continuous run but at the expense of the third station that this plan has.

[Joseph_Pestell]

2 hours ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

I do believe that's S W Stevens-Stratten's layout as featured extensively in my 1979 Model Railway Constructor Annual

 

I don't think that it is his layout. I think that he has just authored the article.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

6 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I don't think that it is his layout. I think that he has just authored the article.

 

Well, what a beastly swizz.  

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

Well, what a beastly swizz.  

 

Just looked back and there may be something interesting going on here.

 

The first showing of this plan, just the terminus but with the lower tracks just visible, in Compound's post is from Model Railway News and attributed to a Mr. L.E. Carroll. That could well be a pseudonym! So perhaps "Steve" had naughtily written an article for a rival publication???

[SteveyDee68]

On 30/05/2020 at 12:07, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

No, it was not me that asked where the four coaches were off to. But, in my student days, from Dover Marine, I often took an early morning 4-car CEP/2 x 2HAP up to Faversham and on to Bromley South for the bus home. Quicker/easier than getting the Boat Train and having to come back again from Victoria. Marine would not make a great model with the platforms completely under the trainshed, but it could make a great fiddleyard.

 

There were four tracks on the ferry interlaced at the stern. I'm not sure of the length but there was certainly enough space for 4 coaches on each of the centre tracks. But you don't necessarily need that many. For much of the year there would be fewer than that, the rest of the deck being taken up by freight (including road vehicles).

 

Have you considered a Rule One solution with an overnight sleeper train to Holland/Germany via a train ferry from Harwich?

 

Apologies - the fortnightly trip to the supermarket during lockdown means I've been slow to respond!

 

Firstly, I have changed my earlier post - with apologies to Joseph - misread who I was quoting!

 

Secondly, Dover Marine is a very impressive station - a recent magazine article actually had a trackplan drawn with both the train ferry berth and associated loops, Admiralty Pier and the complex station threat/junction, but all in N scale. As a lone modeller, it just looked a wee bit too complicated for me to operate realistically or even enjoyably - a case of "my cup overfloweth".

 

However, I do like the overall roof protecting passengers from the elements - and Scalescenes make one together with a very grand station building - so I wanted to emulate without slavishly copying!

 

I'm planning on basing my train ferry upon that designed by Rev Alan Shone for the Wardleworth Lines Committee layout - I have the article with a scale drawing and, although freelance, it's a nice looking vessel to scale up from 2mm to 4mm scale.  I recently won a 1:75 scale drawing of Bute (car ferry in Scotland) but unfortunately the seller misplaced it after I won it* - I hoped to be able to use that to check my scaling up of the Rev Shone's vessel.  In any case, I expect it to carry a maximum of either eight coaches across two tracks (on-vessel sidings being four carriages in length), or possibly nine carriages across three tracks (on-vessel sidings being three carriages in length) using a three way point off the link span.  The second option would result in a slightly shorter vessel (by approximately one carriage length).  So basically Rule 1 is very much in play!

 

Thank you, too, Stephen Lea (Compound2632) for repeating the trackplan you previously showed - I did actually save that image but although I could perhaps treat the bottom two platforms as the train ferry, I would prefer there to not be a direct route from the incoming mainline onto the ship; imagine if a point was set incorrectly for an incoming train whilst there was no ship in dock!   Otherwise it does indeed provide a solution to the request for "Minories on a curve".

 

On 30/05/2020 at 12:22, Pacific231G said:

That's entirely true Phil.

If you want to avoid any reverse curves in the pointwork the minumum angle between the platfroms and the approach lines is twice he divergence angle of the turnout (in the case of Peco about 25 degrees) The problem I've found with laying out throats with Streamline is that their slips have an effecive radius about the same as their small radius points. With full lengrh coaching stock that does give a rather excessive throwover between coaches. However, it's simplicity itself to create an equivalent angled throat with simple turnouts with a nominal radius of about three feet. 

These are both drawn with Peco medium radius points and for the second I've set the approach curve at 30 inch minimum to see how much space it would require (a somewhat arbitrary figure but a nominal three foot radius for points and a thirty inch curve were the BRMSB recommended minima for OO and H0)  For a clear platform length of five feet the whole thing would fit comfortablt into a length of ten foot and that platform length should accomodate a five coach train of Mk 1s with any but the largest steam and almost any diesel or electric locos. There is a reverse curve to platform 3 but the reverse can be separated  by at least eight inches or with a fairly large radius.  The whole thing with its fiddle yard would fit comfortably into  the corner of  a10 ft by 9ft room. 

 

 

Thanks, David (Pacific231G) for your further drawing (it was your original drawing I so crudely butchered!). Do you mind me asking what using large radius Peco points would do to that plan in terms of throat length? (I purchased several large radius points in order to experiment with how ends of coaches throw when going through point formations, and they do seem to make some difference - I plan to use them for any "running lines" and keep medium radius points to sidings.  Due to the issues with slip points, I want to avoid them completely if possible!

 

Regards

 

Steve S

 

* Located (under his sofa!) and duly posted, so I have a scale plan of a ship to assist!

Edited November 30, 2020 by SteveyDee68
Changed description of ferry capacity to clarify; updated

[Joseph_Pestell]

You can find all the relevant lengths on the Peco website. But using the large radius points rather than medium is going to add about 30mm length. If you feel brave enough, they can be shortened a bit.

 

With Peco's "clever" geometry, all points have a 12 degree angle so you can mix and match a bit using medium radius in the trailing direction if that helps.

 

Best option is to print off templates from the Peco website and play about with them a bit until you come up with a combination that works for you.

Edited May 30, 2020 by Joseph_Pestell

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, SteveyDee68 said:

Thank you, too, Stephen Lea (Compound2632) for repeating the trackplan you previously showed - I did actually save that image but although I could perhaps treat the bottom two platforms as the train ferry, I would prefer there to not be a direct route from the incoming mainline onto the ship; imagine if a point was set incorrectly for an incoming train whilst there was no ship in dock!   Otherwise it does indeed provide a solution to the request for "Minories on a curve".

 

Well, showing it again flushed out some interesting information on the identity of the author / builder.

[Pacific231G]

7 hours ago, SteveyDee68 said:

 

Apologies - the fortnightly trip to the supermarket during lockdown means I've been slow to respond!

 

Firstly, I have changed my earlier post - with apologies to Joseph - misread who I was quoting!

 

Secondly, Dover Marine is a very impressive station - an recent magazine article actually had a trackplan drawn with both the train ferry berth and associated loops, Admiralty Pier and the complex station threat/junction, but all in N scale. As a lone modeller, it just looked a wee bit too complicated for me to operate realistically or even enjoyably - a case of "my cup overfloweth".

 

However, I do like the overall roof protecting passengers from the elements - and Scalescenes make one together with a very grand station building - so I wanted to emulate without slavishly copying!

 

I'm planning on basing my train ferry upon that designed by Rev Alan Shone for the Wardleworth Lines Committee layout - I have the article with a scale drawing and, although freelance, it's a nice looking vessel to scale up from 2mm to 4mm scale.  I recently won a 1:75 scale drawing of Bute (car ferry in Scotland) but unfortunately the seller misplaced it after I won it - I hoped to be able to use that to check my scaling up of the Rev Shone's vessel.  In any case, I expect it to carry a maximum of either four coaches on two tracks, or possible three carriages on three tracks (using a three way point off the link span).  So basically Rule 1 is very much in play!

 

Thank you, too, Stephen Lea (Compound2632) for repeating the trackplan you previously showed - I did actually save that image but although I could perhaps treat the bottom two platforms as the train ferry, I would prefer there to not be a direct route from the incoming mainline onto the ship; imagine if a point was set incorrectly for an incoming train whilst there was no ship in dock!   Otherwise it does indeed provide a solution to the request for "Minories on a curve".

 

 

Thanks, David (Pacific231G) for your further drawing (it was your original drawing I so crudely butchered!).  Do you mind me asking what using large radius Peco points would do to that plan in terms of throat length?  (I purchased several large radius points in order to experiment with how ends of coaches throw when going through point formations, and they do seem to make some difference - I plan to use them for any "running lines" and jeep medium radius to sidings.  Due to the issues with slip points, I want to avoid them completely if possible!

 

Regards

 

Steve S

 

Hi Steve

A Peco medium radius point is 8.64 inches long and a large radius 10.2 inches so 1.56 inches longer. The orientation of the points in the angled throat (two at 12  deg and 1 at 24 deg) make a slight reduction to the overall difference in length on the main axis but not very much. You'd be needing a baseboard six inches longer than the  same angled throat using all medium radius points.

[SteveyDee68]

33 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Hi Steve

A Peco medium radius point is 8.64 inches long and a large radius 10.2 inches so 1.56 inches longer. The orientation of the points in the angled throat (two at 12  deg and 1 at 24 deg) make a slight reduction to the overall difference in length on the main axis but not very much. You'd be needing a baseboard six inches longer than the  same angled throat using all medium radius points.

 

Thank you!  I was going to fetch out my long streamline points and physically mock up the throat, but an unexpected power outage tonight meant accessing them in the loft became slightly problematical!  What I am most interested in is to make the curves as smooth as possible and avoid (if at all possible) any S bends through any pointwork intended for coaching or bogie stock to traverse.

 

7 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

You can find all the relevant lengths on the Peco website. But using the large radius points rather than medium is going to add about 30mm length. If you feel brave enough, they can be shortened a bit.

 

I wouldn't say so much brave as maybe "foolhardy"... I cannot yet successfully solder, but can claim beginner's luck when chopping bits of Peco trackwork up with a Lidl version of a Dremel (see below, 'interleaved' aka 'butchered' points!)

 

Thank you all for your help and advice.

 

Steve S

[St Enodoc]

12 hours ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

An almost perfect plan in my book.

I'd like more stock storage at the country end but otherwise yes, a super plan.

 

12 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I don't think that it is his layout. I think that he has just authored the article.

 

11 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Just looked back and there may be something interesting going on here.

 

The first showing of this plan, just the terminus but with the lower tracks just visible, in Compound's post is from Model Railway News and attributed to a Mr. L.E. Carroll. That could well be a pseudonym! So perhaps "Steve" had naughtily written an article for a rival publication???

Yes, I think it's the Lewis Carroll layout, with the article just written by SWS-S.

[Harlequin]

Hi @SteveyDee68,

Can you tell us the dimensions of the space available for the station and ferry dock and the position of the double track connection to the rest of the layout, please? A sketch would be great.

 

[Pacific231G]

18 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

You can find all the relevant lengths on the Peco website. But using the large radius points rather than medium is going to add about 30mm length. If you feel brave enough, they can be shortened a bit.

 

With Peco's "clever" geometry, all points have a 12 degree angle so you can mix and match a bit using medium radius in the trailing direction if that helps.

 

Best option is to print off templates from the Peco website and play about with them a bit until you come up with a combination that works for you.

Hi Jo

I agree with you about the value of Peco's templates and they even come with a rule so you know your printer hasn't rescaled them. However, I'm not sure where you get a 30mm difference from.

A Peco large radius turnout is 258mm long (effectively 260mm) and a medium is 219mm (220mm)  so the difference is 40mm. The minimum length of simple turnouts to connect three platforms to a double track main line is the length of four turnouts so the difference would be 160mm if the points were all straight.

 

 

 

Arguably, if you're using large radius turnouts -nominal five foot (1524mm) radius, you don't need the angled back to back turnout arrangement that  enable Minories to avoid all but one  of the three reverse curves in this arrangement. You shouldn't get buffer locking or excessive throwover between carriages anyway.

 

Minories has the two central points at a twelve degree angle and the angled throat with no reverse curves has two the two middle points at a twelve degree angle and the outermost at twenty four degrees. That slightly reduces the difference in linear length but only by between five and six millimetres   so really negligible compared with the 155-160 mm additional length that using large rather than medium radius turnouts requires.

By the way my experiments with various coaches suggest that, on a straight crossover, using one medium and one large radius turnout doesn't make a lot of difference to the excessive throwover.  However, With the Minories throat, using two large radius turnouts for the angled back to backs does improve the one movement  (inbound line to far platform)  where there is an immediate reverse curve not separated by a straight.

Edited May 31, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Compound2632]

Beware the Peco large radius point. The crossing angle is a bit under 12° and the curve continues beyond the crossing, so that the 12° divergence is achieved at the end of the unit. This leads to trouble:

1. if using a pair "out of the box" to form a crossover at the standard Peco Streamline 2" track centres, there is an unnatural-looking reverse curve between the crossings;
2. if trimming the ends to make a crossover with more prototypical 45 mm track centres, one has to faff about to straighten the rail on the diverging line to avoid a hideous kink;
3. if trying to do the same to make a crossover plus yard access using a single slip, you're sunk because the crossing angles do not line up and that the two "straight" roads cannot be laid parallel.

[Joseph_Pestell]

49 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

 

A Peco large radius turnout is 258mm long (effectively 260mm) and a medium is 219mm (220mm)  so the difference is 40mm. The minimum length of simple turnouts to connect three platforms to a double track main line is the length of four turnouts so the difference would be 160mm if the points were all straight.

 

 

Hi David,

I was referring to the length of the layout along that wall. So the 38mm extra length of the large radius points is only about 30mm effective because the points are on a diagonal. I will admit that it was an estimate. I did not do the calculation/trigonometry.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

Hi Jo

I agree with you about the value of Peco's templates and they even come with a rule so you know your printer hasn't rescaled them. However, I'm not sure where you get a 30mm difference from.

A Peco large radius turnout is 258mm long (effectively 260mm) and a medium is 219mm (220mm)  so the difference is 40mm. The minimum length of simple turnouts to connect three platforms to a double track main line is the length of four turnouts so the difference would be 160mm if the points were all straight.

 

 

 

Arguably, if you're using large radius turnouts -nominal five foot (1524mm) radius, you don't need the angled back to back turnout arrangement that  enable Minories to avoid all but one  of the three reverse curves in this arrangement. You shouldn't get buffer locking or excessive throwover between carriages anyway.

 

Minories has the two central points at a twelve degree angle and the angled throat with no reverse curves has two the two middle points at a twelve degree angle and the outermost at twenty four degrees. That slightly reduces the difference in linear length but only by between five and six millimetres   so really negligible compared with the 155-160 mm additional length that using large rather than medium radius turnouts requires.

By the way my experiments with various coaches suggest that, on a straight crossover, using one medium and one large radius turnout doesn't make a lot of difference to the excessive throwover.  However, With the Minories throat, using two large radius turnouts for the angled back to backs does improve the one movement  (inbound line to far platform)  where there is an immediate reverse curve not separated by a straight.

 

That was exactly my "take" on Minories. On balance, I decided that larger radius points, in my case home made ones, gave the same operational potential and did away with the slightly forced double reverse curve but sacrificed a bit of length. It was a trade off I was happy with.

 

If you go for 2 x 4ft boards, the station throat set out as you have drawn it takes one board, the platforms another. I much prefer it and find it gives a nice balanced design.

 

On Mansfield Market Place, I wanted to run longer trains and made the fiddle yard 8f long and added a further 4ft bord to extend he platforms. This allowed 8 carriages plus a loco but looking back I regret the decision. Somehow the extra 4ft spoiled the balance visually and I think the shorter version would have been just as good to operate and better balanced visually, with 4 coach trains.

 

Here is a snap of i under construction, showing the straight alignment of the points but I did put a "bend" in to sop the tracks being straight and parallel to the baseboard edge and to emulate the curve in the platforms at Chesterfield Market Place.

 

I have mentioned my choices on arrival/departure platforms, the centre carriage holding road and the parcels van bay before, so this is really just to illustrate what your drawn approach looks like in a model.

 

 

 

 

 

[Harlequin]

16 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

That was exactly my "take" on Minories. On balance, I decided that larger radius points, in my case home made ones, gave the same operational potential and did away with the slightly forced double reverse curve but sacrificed a bit of length. It was a trade off I was happy with.

 

If you go for 2 x 4ft boards, the station throat set out as you have drawn it takes one board, the platforms another. I much prefer it and find it gives a nice balanced design.

 

On Mansfield Market Place, I wanted to run longer trains and made the fiddle yard 8f long and added a further 4ft bord to extend he platforms. This allowed 8 carriages plus a loco but looking back I regret the decision. Somehow the extra 4ft spoiled the balance visually and I think the shorter version would have been just as good to operate and better balanced visually, with 4 coach trains.

 

Here is a snap of i under construction, showing the straight alignment of the points but I did put a "bend" in to sop the tracks being straight and parallel to the baseboard edge and to emulate the curve in the platforms at Chesterfield Market Place.

 

I have mentioned my choices on arrival/departure platforms, the centre carriage holding road and the parcels van bay before, so this is really just to illustrate what your drawn approach looks like in a model.

 

 

 

 

 

The inbound line only seems to be directly connected to the two lines nearest to us in that photo. Minories, of course, gives direct access inbound to all platforms.
 

Using the natural angle of the first trailing crossover to turn the running lines across the face of the platforms is one of the key characteristics of Minories. It’s entirely valid to remove it and solve the problems in a different way but then it’s not Minories any more, IMHO.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

The inbound line only seems to be directly connected to the two lines nearest to us in that photo. Minories, of course, gives direct access inbound to all platforms.
 

Using the natural angle of the first trailing crossover to turn the running lines across the face of the platforms is one of the key characteristics of Minories. It’s entirely valid to remove it and solve the problems in a different way but then it’s not Minories any more, IMHO.

 

That is why I added my last paragraph. My design is certainly inspired by Minories but is not a copy of it. I chose to have one arrival platform, an arrival line for ECS that could be then shunted to either platform by the pilot but could also be used to arrive a parcels train, fish train or horse box special that could then be shunted to the loading dock.

 

Of all the potential moves on Minories, "train arrives, loco attaches to back, train departs", is the "easy" option. If you can arrive and depart from all platforms, that is probably what most moves would be on a real city secondary terminus. By taking that option away, I can still do that from my RH platform and the local trains do exactly that. The more long distance ones either go the off scene carriage sidings (fiddle yard), get held in the centre road for a while or get shunted to the RH platform to await a freshly serviced loco from the off scene loco shed (Light engine from the fiddle yard) clearing the arrival platform. I have operated this layout at several shows, in a "work in progress" form as signalling and much scenic work still needs to be done.

 

The layout is fun to operate and the variety of moves for what is a very simple plan keep it interesting enough to entertain me and another operator for 7 or 8 hours solid running.        

 

If you take out the point for the loading dock, move another from the LH to the RH track and put a platform between the centre and RH tracks, it is a straightened up Minories. Whether a straightened up Minories is still a Minories is a decision well above my pay grade! I just nick a few ideas and build layouts.

 

As I said, my purpose in posting was not to show true Minories layout but to give an idea of what a straightened Minories approach as drawn previously would like like on a model.

[Pacific231G]

5 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Hi David,

I was referring to the length of the layout along that wall. So the 38mm extra length of the large radius points is only about 30mm effective because the points are on a diagonal. I will admit that it was an estimate. I did not do the calculation/trigonometry.

Hi Joseph

So was I and angling the points makes surprisingly little difference. I'd always assumed that the  angle the midddle two points are set at in a Minories throat would make it shorter overall than a straight throat with crossovers. It does but only by a bit  less than 10mm so less than half an inch. The relevant trigonometry is the cosine of the angle the turnout is at. For the angled version of the throat that's 0.98 for the middle two points that are at an angle of 12 degrees and 0.91 for the outermost point that'sat 24 deg. The real benefit is for a corner or a U shaped layout where the approach tracks continue to curve through 90 or 180 degrees  and the points from part of that curve.

This is  rather similar to hoping to make a station (say) longer by curving the track or even angling it across the baseboard. For an eight foot long station on a foot wide baseboard that  only gains you about three quarters of an inch (though it'll probably look a lot better)  . 

Edited May 31, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Pacific231G]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

 

 

If you take out the point for the loading dock, move another from the LH to the RH track and put a platform between the centre and RH tracks, it is a straightened up Minories. Whether a straightened up Minories is still a Minories is a decision well above my pay grade! I just nick a few ideas and build layouts.

 

As I said, my purpose in posting was not to show true Minories layout but to give an idea of what a straightened Minories approach as drawn previously would like like on a model.

I've long felt that describing any urban terminus with three platforms and a double track main line as a "Minories", which Tony hasn't but others have,  is to undervalue Cyril Freezer's stroke of genius, His 'invention', that I've seen in no previous plan, was to rearrange the two crossovers using opposite handed points to avoid all but one unseparated reverse curve. That enables it to be built with shorter turnouts  without buffer locking and also gives a much more interesting appearance as trains wind their way to and from the platforms rather than just running in straight lines.

It is of course very straightforward to avoid any reverse curves by angling the throat but that certainly doesn't require any strokes of inspiration. 

[t-b-g]

24 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I've long felt that describing any urban terminus with three platforms and a double track main line as a "Minories", which Tony hasn't but others have,  is to undervalue Cyril Freezer's stroke of genius, His 'invention', that I've seen in no previous plan, was to rearrange the two crossovers using opposite handed points to avoid all but one unseparated reverse curve. That enables it to be built with shorter turnouts  without buffer locking and also gives a much more interesting appearance as trains wind their way to and from the platforms rather than just running in straight lines.

It is of course very straightforward to avoid any reverse curves by angling the throat but that certainly doesn't require any strokes of inspiration. 

 

I would agree with that. There are certain features that really ought to be maintained for a layout to be a true "Minories" and the combination of small radius points and a LH/RH combination on the two crossovers to minimise overthrow was certainly one I would include.

 

When I look at the original plan, I have often thought that the second reverse curve, in the plain track in the platforms, could be avoided by just making one platform wider, perhaps allowing some buildings down it. That could be done with all the original pointwork exactly as CJF designed it but would remove something that always looked slightly contrived to me, which was the S bend one way then the S bend back again.

 

Maybe one day, when my hands and eyes are no longer up to making things and I am in some tiny flat somewhere, I will remember "Minories" and maybe build a proper one, using the points CJF intended. Until then, as I said, I am happy to pinch the ideas and d my own thing with them.

 

I do remember the layout from the 1979 Constructor Annual. When I saw it, I immediately though that would be a layout I would enjoy operating. I would keep Reigate. Being able to run a branch train in between the main line services would add a nice bit of variety and would also give a bit of shunting for goods, which is pretty much absent elsewhere. Taking wagons from Reigate to Clapham to attach to a main line goods, which then goes to Victoria but only lives in the siding until its next run, would add nice extra move.