Theory of General Minories

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

It probably was in connection with alternatives to Minories that I was experimenting with. I did look at straight crossovers made from a pair of Peco large radius points and found that, though they were  better than a pair of medium radius points, the improvement wasn't as great as I'd expected. The only reason for the large radius points to be curved beyond the crossing is to end up with the same 12 degree (1 in 5) divergence angle as Peco's other pointwork, which enables quite complex trackwork to be formed from standard items. For a crossover  that's irrelevant so there is probably scope for surgery on a pair of Peco large radius points to make them straight between the crossings which I think are about 10 degrees (1 in 6) As a bonus, shortening the rails there would also enable a reduction in the rather over wide double track "six foot way" .

Cyril Freezer had the same thought!  The second version of Minories in 60 Plans for small locations that adds a kickback parcels depot to the original (now 7ft long)  scheme does just that. SP36 is by the way eight feet long so does work with Peco medium radius points The only catch I can see is that almost all light engine movements would require entering the fiddle yard (but those to and from platforms two or three do anyway)

 

Probably not as much time as I am but at least I'm now wasting it with gash points laid out on a board with actual rolling stock rather than sitting in front of the PC. That also enables me to see where the excess throwover with longer carriages really is worst.

(All this does though sometimes seem a bit like we're developing the general as well as special theory of Minories throats )

 

Working in EM, I don't have experience of using Peco points but from what others have written, if the crossing angle is the same as the smaller radius, then the overthrow is going to be more on a longer Peco point than on a home made one with a more shallow angle.

 

I did make an error in the design of my Mansfield Market place in that the Y point between the loading dock and the departure platform is too sharp and too soon after the RH point that takes it off the main line. Propelling some of my carriages from the main line to the platform can cause buffer locking. So even a larger radius and longer points can still give problems.

 

I think that is why I am so interested in this discussion. Seeing the ways others are thinking about is is most enlightening and has given me a few ideas. I probably have one more "Minories" left in me as I am plotting a 16ft long version in O Gauge. I don't want to get that wrong and have to do it again!

 

In my head at the moment, I have Zomboid's version from above but with the loco spur extended to form a parcels/loading bay and a second point in there for the loco spur. The kick back siding could go to a very simple turntable with coal and water facilities to allow train locos to be serviced. It is not really very convenient as a carriage siding or loading dock, being rather difficult to shunt without trapping the pilot too much for my liking.

 

Moving points around on a baseboard? That begins to sound like the start of a new layout.

Edited June 5, 2020 by t-b-g
Spelling

[Pacific231G]

10 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

Yes, in the second edition of 60 Plans for Small Railways the axonometric drawing shows two scale bars alongside it, one for TT-3 and one for OO. The TT-3 scale indicates the layout is 5ft long and the OO scale indicates 6ft 8in by only 9in! In this book it is simply referred to as "Plan 49s" - not yet referred to as Minories.

 

In 60 Plans for Small Locations (first published in 1989, my edition from 1996) it has become Plan SP35 and has the Minories name. A new axonometric drawing shows it as 7ft by 1ft and the loco spur is around 12in long. It quotes a minimum radius of 3ft but I take that with a huge pinch of salt because I know it's not possible using Streamline parts - the point ladder simply won't fit into 3ft 6in.

 

It was named as Minories in the original April 1957 RM article, but wasn't named in the first 1958 edition or the 1961 second edition of 60 plans for small railways. The name reappeared in the 1971 third edition*. The same drawings were used in all four of those. The length was quoted as 6ft 6ins in the article but 6ft 8ins in 60 plans but if you look carefully at the OO scale bar in 60 plans it is still 6ft 6ins. 

On whether CJF's plans are feasible, with three foot radius points (e.g. Streamline Medium) the original passenger only Minories throat will fit with all its point work into three feet so very comfortably onto a 39 inch long board as in the original design and the second board only has plain track so almost all the electrics and mechanicals would be on that board. So, contrary to common belief, the original Minories plan could use three foot radius points (and guess what radius Pecoway points of that time used?)

 

 I've also just laid out the SP35 version (with the kickback siding) using Streamline medium radius points and it does indeed require 3ft 7ins. However, that certainly doesn't mean that the plan can't be built in 3ft 6ins with three foot radius points. I happen to have a couple of three foot radius Pecoway points and they're 0.2 inches shorter than Streamline so would have fitted (just!) into 42 inches. An SMP 3ft radius point is almost half an inch shorter than Streamline so would certainly fit.

However, Streamline is not Setrack so were I absolutely determined to use it and fit all the pointwork onto a 42inch long baseboard I could,for a ladder like that, simply shorten the toe of each turnout slightly (by one sleeper)  without going anywhere near the mechanism thus saving about 1.5 inches in total (I'd actually avoid doing that for the points at the board end but would probably replace the final sleeper with a pcb and solder the rails to it.  

At the moment I'm looking at replacing one of the back to back points with a large radius one to ease the throwover problem on the up line to platform one route and all the main pointwork still fits comfortably onto the metre length board I'm thinking of using. The kickback to a small goods depot would still need to go onto the next board.

 

* Cyril Freezer said that he chose the name Minories for his original article fairly  casually to suggest a generic inner city commuter terminus (though Minories seems to be a name peculiar to London from the 'Minorite' Franciscan Friars who once had a cloister there)  For the first edition of 60 plans, only the five plans of actual layouts (Culm Valley, Craig and Mertonford, Potter's Heron, Charford, and Tregunna) were named and those plans were dropped in the second edition. I suspect that by the third edition the plan had become classic and known by its name so it was used from then on.

Edited June 5, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Was this the layout built for Freezer Jr for his University dorm? I seem to recall photos in an RM of the early 70s....

[Keith Addenbrooke]

9 hours ago, Harlequin said:

This is the best I could achieve in trying to reproduce SP35 in unmodified Streamline parts (a combination of small and medium radius turnouts):

 

 

The problem with using a small Y anywhere in the ladder is that it turns one of the routes too much to comfortably fit the formation within the 1ft width limit.

 

The reverse curves in the platform lines have quite large radii so they shouldn't be a problem. They could be removed by allowing the platforms to be diagonal but would that be diverging from the Minories concept too much? 

 

Thanks for this Phil, it looks spot-on for the original : I note the extra 3 degree turn to make it work exactly.  I must have been looking at this plan on and off for over 40 years, but it’s the first time I’ve really thought about the contradiction between going to the trouble to avoid S curves in the pointwork, only to include one in Platform 3 because of the baseboard joint - I guess the girder bridge would hide that from viewers?

 

7 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Yes, I think it does. The other two platforms don't need to be as curved either as a result.

 

The thick black line is the fold in the baseboard of the original idea, other points are shorts and mediums as per Harlequin's version above. (Baseboard is 18" wide but it would clearly work at 12", 6" grid)

The other point I’ve not really considered is one made quite frequently early on in this thread when it began in 2012, that one visual issue with the plan is that it can look as if the engineers “threw the mainline at the station and missed” - I like the elegance of Zomboid’s smoothing of the platform curve, but if was a kid train spotting at the end of the platform, I think even I might eventually realise the platform ends turn away from the tunnel entrance and wonder why?  If anything, smoothing the curve suddenly makes that seem more obvious (weirdly).

 

You may just have explained why this particular design has never quite worked for me - which I hadn’t figured out for myself.  I think I’ll stick to single track branch lines.

[t-b-g]

4 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

Was this the layout built for Freezer Jr for his University dorm? I seem to recall photos in an RM of the early 70s....

 

No it wasn't. There was another folding layout built later. Last time I spoke to Nick Freezer at a show, he said that he still had it after keeping it in store for many years and that he was considering breathing some new life into it.

 

Now can I remember what it was called?

 

Possibly "Dugdale Road" after Jack Dugdale.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

I'd like to see that one again... I can't recall which month/year RM it was in and I cba to visit the loft tonight.

[t-b-g]

18 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

I'd like to see that one again... I can't recall which month/year RM it was in and I cba to visit the loft tonight.

 

A quick search of the web showed that Dugdale Road appears as one of the layouts in the "Plans for smaller layouts" book, as Plan 42.

 

The significance of that number is not lost on me!

 

I remember seeing photos of it in Railway Modeller when it was basically bare baseboards and track and I don't recall seeing it with a scenic finish but perhaps I missed that edition.

[Zomboid]

22 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

but if was a kid train spotting at the end of the platform, I think even I might eventually realise the platform ends turn away from the tunnel entrance and wonder why?

 

There's believable excuses you could make. Possibly the station is not the first one to be built on the site, and they had to make use of the space they had. Or some geological issue or land ownership issue meaning the tunnel has to be sightly offset.

 

Curved terminal stations aren't uncommon, but I'm not aware of any which curve both ways, but there's no fundamental reason why the platforms have to curve at all.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 minute ago, Zomboid said:

 

There's believable excuses you could make. Possibly the station is not the first one to be built on the site, and they had to make use of the space they had. Or some geological issue or land ownership issue meaning the tunnel has to be sightly offset.

 

Curved terminal stations aren't uncommon, but I'm not aware of any which curve both ways, but there's no fundamental reason why the platforms have to curve at all.

Might platforms that had been extended at some point be another possible one (or some other reason to do with the concourse end of the station)?

[Harlequin]

I can't fit the large Y in my plan to smooth the route into platform 3:

 

You can see that it gets perilously close to the hinge column and fouls the baseboard joint.

 

You might say, "Ah but you've still got your 3° turn in the ladder" but if I remove that and go for Medium radius turnouts throughout:

 

You can see that the line is now too far away from the hinge post and either makes platform 3 shorter or thinner or will move all the other platforms up to compensate - and still the final turnout, whether Medium or Y, fouls the baseboard joint.

 

When space is this tight, and there are obstructions like the hinges to take into account, planning has to be precise!

 

I think that having the loco spur come off the diagonal is more aesthetically pleasing than making a boring straight connection to the outbound line. It curves in the same way as the platform lines beside it.

 

In the Introduction to 60 Plans for Small Locations CJF says, "...the pointwork is set out to use Peco Setrack and Streamline products...", strongly implying that they would be used as-is, so trimming turnouts feels like cheating when trying to reproduce a CJF original plan.

 

[t-b-g]

I really don't know what we are all messing about for. The definitive Minories has been built.

 

 

We can all pack up and go home.

 

I think it is telling that the kick back siding only sees use for a P.Way train. As I said earlier, shunting in there is hardly convenient and I think I prefer the version without the kick back at all. I have to say that even with the LH/RH combination, those throw overs look horrible!

[St Enodoc]

15 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I think it was necessary for a few reasons, one being a need to keep the width down, another being that the angle of the points swings the lines so far over to the front that you need to get them back and the third is the lack of variety of points available at the time.

 

The two main platforms don't look too bad and the curves can be made to look very gentle. It is the S bend between the toe of the point to the kickback siding and Platform 3 which looks the worst. It just looks as if it is only there because a standard point was used. I had wondered about changing it for a RH point, so the line into the platform is straight there but then that just shifts the problem of reverse curves to the route from Pl 3 to the siding. That is why I suggested a Y point there. I don't have the skill or ability to draw a plan like Harlequin did but if anybody fancies doing one with that LH short point replaced with a Y point, my instinct tells me that the alignment of Pl 3 would look much better.   

Tony, I'm sure I read (possibly here) that it was needed to clear the hinge.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

8 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I can't fit the large Y in my plan to smooth the route into platform 3:

 

You can see that it gets perilously close to the hinge column and fouls the baseboard joint.

 

You might say, "Ah but you've still got your 3° turn in the ladder" but if I remove that and go for Medium radius turnouts throughout:

 

You can see that the line is now too far away from the hinge post and either makes platform 3 shorter or thinner or will move all the other platforms up to compensate - and still the final turnout, whether Medium or Y, fouls the baseboard joint.

 

When space is this tight, and there are obstructions like the hinges to take into account, planning has to be precise!

 

I think that having the loco spur come off the diagonal is more aesthetically pleasing than making a boring straight connection to the outbound line. It curves in the same way as the platform lines beside it.

 

In the Introduction to 60 Plans for Small Locations CJF says, "...the pointwork is set out to use Peco Setrack and Streamline products...", strongly implying that they would be used as-is, so trimming turnouts feels like cheating when trying to reproduce a CJF original plan.

 

I also think that I read in one of CJF’s books (possibly one edition of his Small Layouts book) that he favoured baseboards no longer than 3’6” - as here - for layouts that needed to be portable (he may have even said 3’3” ?), either to fit in smaller cars or for weight reasons, rather than the 4’ I might think of as standard, ruling out the other option of moving the hinge joint 6” to the left.
 

From the quote though, I wonder if a Setrack Y would be permissible? I’ve not checked if it would fit.  The radius wouldn’t be too bad (though not 3’), but aesthetically having Setrack sleepers at the front of the layout might not work for everyone - it would also mean Code 100, same issue.  Just a thought.

Edited June 6, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke

[t-b-g]

4 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Tony, I'm sure I read (possibly here) that it was needed to clear the hinge.

 

Whatever the reason, trains coming into the platform go left, then right, then left again within about 18" which always seemed contrived to me and I always thought one of the least satisfactory aspects of the plan.

 

I do recall reading that the baseboard length was to fit on the back seat of a car, which was before cars got big and became hatchbacks. I think if it was being done today but still insisting on those restrictions would be giving yourself shackles that need no longer apply.

 

A board an inch or two longer and wider solves many problems. Even if you still want it hinged, which I wouldn't,  modern lightweight baseboard techniques could reduce more weight than the extra inches add.

 

None of the above applies if your aim is to recreate, in perfect detail, the original plan. That was never my intention. Mine was to pinch ideas and the operational potential. I am quite happy with 4ft boards and doing away with the snake like approach. Seeing my trains going over a decent scale radius crossover is much more satisfying to me than the sharp left to right swings over even 3ft radius points.

[St Enodoc]

4 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

wider solves many problems

That would give the chance to eliminate both the reverse curve in platforms 1 and 2 and the double reverse curve into platform 3, as we've seen in many of the variations posted here.

[D-A-T]

A very interesting thread which has left much to think about.

My new layout is a slight variation on Iain Rice’s Harestone which is his interpretation of Minories.

I attach a track plan prepared on Anyrail but I’m not quite happy with it, specifically the single slip access to the loco/turntable road and coal road. I guess I’m going to have to buckle down and learn Templot to obtain a bespoke formation that looks better. 
The layout is my first EM gauge one. Point work is mainly B7s. Era Pre WWI, Joint GNR & GCR. The fiddle yard is a Tim Horn revolving one I already have.

EDIT: I agree with the comment about the designers “optimistic pencil”. The original design is 6’6” which is wholly impossible to achieve. The 7’6” shown here is the minimum I could do it in in order to achieve roughly the same platform length.

Edited June 6, 2020 by D-A-T
Missed a point out.

[t-b-g]

2 minutes ago, D-A-T said:

A very interesting thread which has left much to think about.

My new layout is a slight variation on Iain Rice’s Harestone which is his interpretation of Minories.

I attach a track plan Prepared on Anyrail but I’m not quite happy with it, specifically the single slip access to the loco/turntable road. I guess I’m going to have to buckle down and learn Templot to obtain a bespoke formation that looks better. 
The layout is my first EM gauge one. Point work is mainly B7s. Era Pre WWI, Joint GNR & GCR. The fiddle yard is a Tim Horn revolving one I already have. 

 

You had me at pregrouping GCR/GNR!

 

I have to say that when I look at the plan, Minories doesn't come to mind at all. The station throat has more of a West Kirby feel about it, which is another layout on RMWeb that has given me much food for thought.

 

As a plan, I like it.

 

If you are not keen on the single slip, I can envisage a conventional point in the loop just above where your loco coal facilities are and moving the turntable up to the end of the layout might avoid it. The turntable in front of a retaining wall might look good too.

[t-b-g]

Just going back through the thread, I notice that I haven't posted my latest layout on this thread, although it has appeared elsewhere. Something a bit like it appears in my planning scribbles from a page or two back.

 

Again, inspired by but not a copy of Minories.

 

My brief was to create a layout in 8ft, with realistic radius point, capable of handling a 4-6-0 and 5 short bogie carriages. The only way I could do this is to limit the length of the station pointwork to two points.

 

I struggled for a while but then on a visit to a show I saw a layout that had done just that effectively. I pinched the core of their design and altered it to suit my requirements. I don't know if it should be on a Minories thread at all but it could be almost a "Baby Minories"!

 

 

The LH track is the loco spur, then the two main lines.The LH and the two middle roads are platforms and the LH road is for parcels, horses, vans etc.

 

Trains can arrive in Pl 1 or 2 and can depart from 2 or 3. Simultaneous moves can be an arrival in 1 and a departure from 2 or an arrival in 2 and a departure from 3. Stock arriving in 1 has to be shunted to 2, where it can go out from. Arrivals in 2 can either go straight back out or get shunted to 3 or to the loading dock.

 

It is to be pre-grouping, based on the Sheffield District Railway, which never had its own station in Sheffield (until now). The line would have been worked by the Midland, the GCR (service to Barnsley)  the LD&ECR (who shared the passenger workings to Langwith Junction with the Midland) and could also serve GNR trains from Doncaster.

 

I am building it to the old Manchester EM standards as I have obtained a number of carriages and wagons that belonged to Sid Stubbs and which are too good to stay in boxes and not run!

 

 

Edited June 6, 2020 by t-b-g

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Minories Minor!

[Flying Pig]

54 minutes ago, D-A-T said:

My new layout is a slight variation on Iain Rice’s Harestone which is his interpretation of Minories.

 

43 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I have to say that when I look at the plan, Minories doesn't come to mind at all.

 

This plan crops up regularly on Minories threads. It wasn't intended by the author to be Minories, rather the outer suburban counterpart, with elements of Caterham I think.  It's a different kind of layout altogether (omnes: It's a different kind of layout).

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Minories Major...

 

 

 

 

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

I kind of feel guilty bringing this to the conversation, but curiosity got the better of me...

 

Just using standard Setrack pieces 80cm x 30cm seems to be the minimum for the station throat (31.5” x just under 12”).  The Setrack curvature and spacing means extra width is needed, length is not a problem.  Note, this assumes that platforms 1 and 2 curve back sufficiently on the next board for the Platform 3 track to remain straight.  The loco stabling siding could also curve inwards too of course.
 

(Sorry, pictures no longer available)

 

A compressed version could fit onto a Billy bookcase shelf  (76cm x 26cm) by losing platform 3 and having one wide island platform:

 

(Sorry, pictures no longer available)

 

The term “throw over” is very appropriate (these are 57’ coaches).

 

(Sorry, pictures no longer available)

 

I’m not planning to build this - I have more Setrack points still in my box for micro-layouts than I realised.

Edited October 7, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Edited for text only as photo no longer available

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

A home for Ratio four wheelers, or Hattons Generics....

[whart57]

42 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

 

This plan crops up regularly on Minories threads. It wasn't intended by the author to be Minories, rather the outer suburban counterpart, with elements of Caterham I think.  It's a different kind of layout altogether (omnes: It's a different kind of layout).

 

Just as a matter of interest I went to the National Library of Scotland website to look at the real Caterham on 25" to the mile OS maps. Turns out that the track plan is significantly different on the three different editions available. On the 1895 version Caterham is a simple single line terminus with a single line by the platform, almost Ashburton like, but with no loco facilities. Now the odd thing is that (doing a Portillo) consulting my 1887 Bradshaw, the Caterham branch train seems to be a shuttle service to Caterham Junction (aka Purley)

 

On the 1910 OS map though, there are loco facilities - a turntable and a spur - and the platform layout has been remodelled to have the station building at the end and two lines, one each side of the platform, both of which have run-rounds. This is the closest to Iain Rice's Harestone, but is considerably bigger. By 1933 however the turntable and loco siding have gone as the line has been electrified.

 

What is pretty clear though is that Caterham is no "Minories".

[ejstubbs]

1 hour ago, whart57 said:

Just as a matter of interest I went to the National Library of Scotland website to look at the real Caterham on 25" to the mile OS maps. Turns out that the track plan is significantly different on the three different editions available.

 

There's a thread here that goes in to some discussion about the different phases of the station layout at Caterham.

Edited June 6, 2020 by ejstubbs