Theory of General Minories

[SteveyDee68]

37 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

This is what passes for drawing layout plans around here! Sometimes, if I get 20 minutes to spare and it isn't worth going in the shed, I pick up a pad and a pencil and do no more than doodles. I hate throwing stuff away so I have many dozens of pages like it. Some of them even get built!

 

 

 

 

And that is what most of my efforts look like too!  I did, however, draw up a plan for a narrow gauge terminus back when I was at school which I kept - I've redrawn it many times, yet cannot (in my own opinion) improve upon my teenage efforts!  I'm not sure why I have kept it so long (it is on very thin paper!) but a few years ago I stumbled across the Gn15 forum, and have had an itch to build it ever since in that size.  Maybe, one day!

 

Steve S

 

(Drawn back in the day when I used to use a real ink pen!)

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

This is what passes for drawing layout plans around here! Sometimes, if I get 20 minutes to spare and it isn't worth going in the shed, I pick up a pad and a pencil and do no more than doodles. I hate throwing stuff away so I have many dozens of pages like it. Some of them even get built!

 

 

 

When I go through my old (and new) notebooks I find a lot of doodles like that - but not so well drawn. When I used to travel on the tube each day I kept a card in my wallet with the lengths of turnouts and various vehicles. It certainly passed the time

1 hour ago, SteveyDee68 said:

 

Hi David Pacific231G

 

You were able to name the type of drawing that I couldn't remember when I posted!  Shame on me - I worked for a while in the University of Manchester's School of Architecture, and was there when the new (at the time) University logo was introduce. Unfortunately, the graphic designers of the logo had done it in such a way that it was neither 3D (no consistent vanishing point) or an axonometric projection and the School of Architecture flat refused to use it, as they said it would make them the laughing stock of every architect in the country!  They continued to use the original University crest on all their official correspondence!

 

 

Not me. It was Cyril Freezer who called it that in the original Minories article in RM

I notice though that in 60 plans for small locations (where the rotation was 30 degrees) that he describes it as a quasi-isometric plan so someone may have pulled him  up on the definition.   I understand axonometric to be a fairly wide term including all the isometric projections and other non perspective projections where none of the planes of view are flat on the page *. For model railway plans this quasi-isometric view has the obvious virtue that you can simply rotate an existing plan view - the one we normally use- and add the verticals to visualise it albeit somewhat crudely. It is different from the commonest isometric drawing where the x,y and z axes are at 120 degrees to one another. That gives a better 3D impression but you'd have to redraw the plan. I know some track planning software does generate 3D views and you can choose your viewpoint but I don't know what technique they use .

 

* I did do technical drawing as part of a marine engineering OND but wasn't very good at it and we just did orthographic projections (side, end and plan elevations). I did go on to get an engineering degree but i don't remember that including any technical drawing, just a lot of higher calculus that made my brain hurt (Div, Grad and Curl ughhh!) and enough dire warnings about metal fatigue to make me wonder whether our Prof. had been involved in designing the Comet 1. 

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, SteveyDee68 said:

 

And that is what most of my efforts look like too!  I did, however, draw up a plan for a narrow gauge terminus back when I was at school which I kept - I've redrawn it many times, yet cannot (in my own opinion) improve upon my teenage efforts!  I'm not sure why I have kept it so long (it is on very thin paper!) but a few years ago I stumbled across the Gn15 forum, and have had an itch to build it ever since in that size.  Maybe, one day!

 

Steve S

 

(Drawn back in the day when I used to use a real ink pen!)

 

That is almost professional compared to mine! I did develop one or two into coloured in fairly detailed plans in a similar style but that looks as good as some I have seen published in magazines. Nice design too.

[SteveyDee68]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

That is almost professional compared to mine! I did develop one or two into coloured in fairly detailed plans in a similar style but that looks as good as some I have seen published in magazines. Nice design too.

 

That is very kind of you to say so.  I know that I used highlighter pens to add the colour; the two shades of red in the buildings was achieved by going over one side of each roof multiple times to darken the ink density.  After 30 years in a folder, it's interesting that the red and blue inks have hardly changed but the green ink has turned yellow!

 

I also noticed that at some point I pencilled in a kickback siding from the waterside siding - the similarity between the plan and what I have ended up with on my micro layout Woodhey Quay has literally just struck me!

 

Steve S

[roythebus]

Having tried to build several CJF layouts over the years, very few of them are actually buildable and workable. Minories works, I done that in about 1968; the big terminus was built by a schoolfriend at about the same time, but curved through 90degrees. That just about worked.

 

His layout with loads of loops and a central terminus I tried to build about 15 years ago. That didn't work because the radii were far too sharp and the pointwork didn't fit, no matter how i tried. the gradients were horrendous as well. The concept was goo, but not in such a small space.

 

One of his 6x4 starter plans was built in the early 1960 and just about worked. Cyril admitted himself that a lot of his plans were unbuildable or unworkable. I suspect they were designed to maximise Peco's profits by including as many points in as small a space as possible. 

Edited June 2, 2020 by roythebus

[Joseph_Pestell]

7 hours ago, roythebus said:

Having tried to build several CJF layouts over the years, very few of them are actually buildable and workable. Minories works, I done that in about 1968; the big terminus was built by a schoolfriend at about the same time, but curved through 90degrees. That just about worked.

 

His layout with loads of loops and a central terminus I tried to build about 15 years ago. That didn't work because the radii were far too sharp and the pointwork didn't fit, no matter how i tried. the gradients were horrendous as well. The concept was goo, but not in such a small space.

 

One of his 6x4 starter plans was built in the early 1960 and just about worked. Cyril admitted himself that a lot of his plans were unbuildable or unworkable. I suspect they were designed to maximise Peco's profits by including as many points in as small a space as possible. 

 

I don't think that CJF is the only offender in this regard. I have seen many other plans published in magazines that were even more impossible in reality.

[whart57]

9 hours ago, roythebus said:

Having tried to build several CJF layouts over the years, very few of them are actually buildable and workable.

 

Similar complaints have been made of Iain Rice's plans too, even though Iain built some of them and exhibited them.

 

My take would be that when designing for publication there are two incompatible pressures: the need to fit a "standard" space, such as a 6'x4' baseboard or 7'6"x5'6" (the interior measurements of a common 8'x6' garden shed); and, on the other hand, the need to squeeze in all the features the layout theme requires. There is a huge temptation then to skimp on clearances, to make curves a smidgen sharper and to squeeze turnouts together tighter than physically possible. The purpose of the design is after all to look good on the page.

 

It would be an interesting exercise for someone bored with lockdown to take some of CJF's plans and try to recreate them in Anyrail, just to see how much extra baseboard space all round is required to make them work.

[Harlequin]

Even contemporary plans in current magazines sometimes look a bit suspicious to me - especially the curve radii used in freehand sketched plans.

 

I have shown at least that Minories can be done using Streamline turnouts in the original 7ft by 1ft space. It's somewhere further back in this thread I think, and in my blog.

 

I'm actually thinking of making a version of Minories in the original form, folding in the middle and I've got an idea for a period treatment that would suit it. All the versions of Minories I've ever seen have changed or expanded on CJF's original concept in some way so maybe something close to the original would have some individuality now?

 

Edited June 3, 2020 by Harlequin

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Even contemporary plans in current magazines sometimes look a bit suspicious to me - especially the curve radii used in freehand sketched plans.

 

I have shown at least that Minories can be done using Streamline turnouts in the original 7ft by 1ft space. It's somewhere further back in this thread I think, and in my blog.

 

I'm actually thinking of making a version of Minories in the original form, folding in the middle and I've got an idea for a period treatment that would suit it. All the versions of Minories I've ever seen have changed or expanded on CJF's original concept in some way so maybe something close to the original would have some individuality now?

 

I think that's right Phil. The arrangement of the points is one of the defining features of Minories. Another is the folding baseboard.

[Pacific231G]

6 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I think that's right Phil. The arrangement of the points is one of the defining features of Minories. Another is the folding baseboard.

Whether or not the baseboard actually folds* the design feature than most people miss is the overbridge that appears to be there simply to disguise the hinge towers  but is visually important in dividing the terminus into two distinct scenes, throat and platforms, and that draws attention away from the short length of trains. If you've seen Geoff Ashdown's EM Tower Pier, where the passenger terminus is operationally equivalent to and the same two metre total length as the original OO Minories plan, you'll know just how effective this can be.  In O scale versions that seems far less of a problem as you tend not to take in the whole thing in a single glance but, in the smaller scales, you do unless there is a view blocker. I've been wondering about having the throat and the platforms as separate light boxes. 

Phil.

Have you seen David Curtis' "Casterbridge North". It's an EM gauge Minories that follows the original plan very closely including the over bridge and is also 3m long by 385mm wide with a kickback fidddle yard behind the retaining wall . It's set on the LSWR in 1900-1910, so short coaches making longer seeming trains. David is a member of the Falmouth MRS and there are some photos of it on their website here .

https://fsrm.weebly.com/casterbridge-north.html 

and here

https://fsrm.weebly.com/hayle-exhibition-august-2013.html

The layout is a double fold with the throat folding up to cover the station board and the fiddle yard lead folding down to end up on top if that makes sense.

 

*I used to be very keen on folding layouts as they can be put up and taken down quickly and reliably and are easy to store but I'm no longer so sure. With both halves longer than about 1m, they do tend to be a rather heavy lump and you can't work on part of the layout without opening it up completely. I found that particularly with an H0e layout using the same "Denny" fold as Minories that unfolded to 8ft x 1ft and was always awkward to carry up and down stairs. My current horizontally folding H0  layout is a tapered 5ft 3 ins long and folds into a 33 x 23 inch box but that is also quite awkward to carry up and down stairs. 

Edited June 3, 2020 by Pacific231G

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Whether or not the baseboard actually folds* the design feature than most people miss is the overbridge that appears to be there simply to disguise the hinge towers  but is visually important in dividing the terminus into two distinct scenes, throat and platforms, and that draws attention away from the short length of trains. If you've seen Geoff Ashdown's EM Tower Pier, where the passenger terminus is operationally equivalent to and the same two metre total length as the original OO Minories plan, you'll know just how effective this can be.  In O scale versions that seems far less of a problem as you tend not to take in the whole thing in a single glance but, in the smaller scales, you do unless there is a view blocker. I've been wondering about having the throat and the platforms as separate light boxes. 

Phil.

Have you seen David Curtis' "Casterbridge North". It's an EM gauge Minories that follows the original plan very closely including the over bridge and is also 3m long by 385mm wide with a kickback fidddle yard behind the retaining wall . It's set on the LSWR in 1900-1910, so short coaches making longer seeming trains. David is a member of the Falmouth MRS and there are some photos of it on their website here .

https://fsrm.weebly.com/casterbridge-north.html 

and here

https://fsrm.weebly.com/hayle-exhibition-august-2013.html

The layout is a double fold with the throat folding up to cover the station board and the fiddle yard lead folding down to end up on top if that makes sense.

 

*I used to be very keen on folding layouts as they can be put up and taken down quickly and reliably and are easy to store but I'm no longer so sure. With both halves longer than about 1m, they do tend to be a rather heavy lump and you can't work on part of the layout without opening it up completely. I found that particularly with an H0e layout using the same "Denny" fold as Minories that unfolded to 8ft x 1ft and was always awkward to carry up and down stairs. My current horizontally folding H0  layout is a tapered 5ft 3 ins long and folds into a 33 x 23 inch box but that is also quite awkward to carry up and down stairs. 

 

Thanks for drawing my/our attention to Casterbridge North. I hadn't seen it before and it looks lovely! 

 

Right up my street, EM and pregrouping. All boxes ticked as far as I am concerned.

[Joseph_Pestell]

8 hours ago, whart57 said:

 

Similar complaints have been made of Iain Rice's plans too, even though Iain built some of them and exhibited them.

 

My take would be that when designing for publication there are two incompatible pressures: the need to fit a "standard" space, such as a 6'x4' baseboard or 7'6"x5'6" (the interior measurements of a common 8'x6' garden shed); and, on the other hand, the need to squeeze in all the features the layout theme requires. There is a huge temptation then to skimp on clearances, to make curves a smidgen sharper and to squeeze turnouts together tighter than physically possible. The purpose of the design is after all to look good on the page.

 

It would be an interesting exercise for someone bored with lockdown to take some of CJF's plans and try to recreate them in Anyrail, just to see how much extra baseboard space all round is required to make them work.

 

Iain Rice's plans look OK to me but I think that he is usually working on the premise that hand-built pointwork will be used.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

A rather nice Minories here, in P4 with 3rd rail no less...

 

 

 

[Harlequin]

7 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

A rather nice Minories here, in P4 with 3rd rail no less...

 

 

 

It's lovely but I would venture to suggest that doesn't qualify as a true Minories because the throat is very different - incorporating a sophisticated curving scissors by the look of it!

 

[Flying Pig]

2 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

It's lovely but I would venture to suggest that doesn't qualify as a true Minories because the throat is very different - incorporating a sophisticated curving scissors by the look of it!

 

 

Nothing so simple: one side of the scissors is an outside single slip, so it's intermediate between the compacted deutero-Minories throat that uses a standard slip and one with a full scissors.  And it's fully interlocked; and the point rodding is functional.  The builder is on here as HAB.  I think the 4 SUB in the linked picture is the one scratchbuilt by the late Colin Parks.

 

 

[Compound2632]

42 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

A rather nice Minories here, in P4 with 3rd rail no less...

 

There's some rather splendid moiré fringes in this shot - showing that it's inadvisable to make your brickwork too regular.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

It's lovely but I would venture to suggest that doesn't qualify as a true Minories...

 

But it is called Minories, so that is my defence and I'm sticking to it....

 

[t-b-g]

46 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

But it is called Minories, so that is my defence and I'm sticking to it....

 

 

I had a chat with the builder, as he was getting under way. He had some early constructional bits on a demo stand at Scalefour North a few years ago. He likes to push his skills and wanted to do a Minories with the pointwork compressed as much as possible to save length but still maintaining all the same operations.

Edited June 3, 2020 by t-b-g

[Pacific231G]

6 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Thanks for drawing my/our attention to Casterbridge North. I hadn't seen it before and it looks lovely! 

 

Right up my street, EM and pregrouping. All boxes ticked as far as I am concerned.

I had a phome conversation with David Curtis after I'd discovered Casterbridge North in 2018.

He gave me some useful steers from his experience with it  - including the disadvantages of the three way fold, "which seems very neat in theory",  and the propensity of plywood baseboards to warp. My conclusions were that I wish I could build layouts as good looking as that!

The layout doesn't seem to have travelled much beyond west Cornwall , I've not seen it as ExpoEM, but I've managed to find a fair number of photos of it . One idea I rather liked was the traverser on the offstage board leading to hidden sidings behind the actual terminus, David said that's it a favourite space saving trick of his.  

[RJS1977]

15 hours ago, whart57 said:

 

 

It would be an interesting exercise for someone bored with lockdown to take some of CJF's plans and try to recreate them in Anyrail, just to see how much extra baseboard space all round is required to make them work.

 

Weren't many of Cyril's earlier plans designed for Triang track?

[t-b-g]

17 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I had a phome conversation with David Curtis after I'd discovered Casterbridge North in 2018.

He gave me some useful steers from his experience with it  - including the disadvantages of the three way fold, "which seems very neat in theory",  and the propensity of plywood baseboards to warp. My conclusions were that I wish I could build layouts as good looking as that!

The layout doesn't seem to have travelled much beyond west Cornwall , I've not seen it as ExpoEM, but I've managed to find a fair number of photos of it . One idea I rather liked was the traverser on the offstage board leading to hidden sidings behind the actual terminus, David said that's it a favourite space saving trick of his.  

 

It isn't often I see something that makes me think "I could fancy the idea of doing that" but that layout has done just that. Having moved Leighton Buzzard around I would agree about folding boards. Rather too heavy to lift without a second person and if you want to work on a board you need twice the space.

 

I am just pondering on a fiddle yard for my new layout and the traverser with kick back sidings is one idea under consideration. I might make the kick back sidings a tray that can come off, so I can lift two or three trains off together and put different ones on. The tray can then be turned before being used again and it will save handling stock and allow the tracks where the fiddle yard would normally be to stay clear to shunt trains from one platform to the other. 

[Pacific231G]

10 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Weren't many of Cyril's earlier plans designed for Triang track?

apart from the overtly proprietary plans designed as a first step up from the train set and using sectional track (15 and 18 inch radius) he worked for Peco so would surely have drawn most plans so that they could be built with Pecoway and later Streamline track (though they could as easily be built with Formoway, Gem or Wrenn track) Pecoway and Individualy used a standard three foot radius turnout with a 12 degree cast frog (no. 5 more or less),  I've got a couple of them and the geometry is pretty much the same as a Streamline medium or an SMP three foot radius point.  That seems to have been the most common crossing angle and radius used by modellers who assembled or built their own track in the 1950s and 1960s and even now it seems a good compromise between excessive length and excessively shartp. Two foot radius was more common for "assembled" points from everyone from Hamblings to Wrenn though three foot radius points were also offered by some. Streamline launched with two foot radius points using the same crossing angle so may well have already been aiming at modellers working up from sectional track to something more serious. However, I'm certain that Minories was originally designed for Peco's original TT spiked track in five foot of length which had 18inch radius points (eqivalent to 24 inch with 16.5mm gauge) GEM's TT poitns were 16 inch radius they'd have fitted equally well. However, even the two metre original can be built with three foot radius points as Casterbridge North demonstrates (I can't see anyone working in EM using anything smaller) 

 

To be perfectly honest, I don't think the smooth snaking of passenger stock over pointwork that is one of Minories' attractions works with anything sharper than three foot radius. I've tried laying it out with Peco small radius points and stock just lurches over it. With three foot radius points, apart from the two back to back points connecting the inbound line with the far platform 1. it looks vastly better than straight crossovers using the same points. 

Edited June 4, 2020 by Pacific231G

[St Enodoc]

41 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I might make the kick back sidings a tray that can come off, so I can lift two or three trains off together and put different ones on. The tray can then be turned before being used again and it will save handling stock and allow the tracks where the fiddle yard would normally be to stay clear to shunt trains from one platform to the other. 

Sounds familiar...

[t-b-g]

7 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Sounds familiar...

 

If you have experience of such an arrangement, can you pass on any tips and does it work well in actual use?

 

I have about 6 different ideas floating around in my head for fiddle yard designs and anything that helps me settle on one will be appreciated!

[whart57]

15 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Iain Rice's plans look OK to me but I think that he is usually working on the premise that hand-built pointwork will be used.

 

Speaking from experience I can say that hand-built pointwork is even less forgiving than commercial stuff.