Jump to content
 

Theory of General Minories


Mike W2
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:


Could I suggest one small change to help connect to Harlequin’s Seironim: have the shunting neck the other way round to face Minories, then shunt Seironim from the SAD line, as this gets access to the Parcels / Milk / Van bay?

That means shunting via the inbound lines. Which is possible of course, and necessary with the parcels bay where @Harlequin has put it on Seironim.

If I was doing a right hand running model then I'd swap it round too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

I quite like that but a question: with the extra length needed for the loco release, can it handle trains of the same length as the equivalent Minories?

Thanks!

I think it can handle trains of the same length. I reckon train length, excluding loco, for SP35 is just under 3ft.

 

Quote

 

The centre road can't easily be used as a carriage siding - at least not for full-length trains - if it's also used as a loco release.

It can be used for either full length train storage or loco release but not both at the same time. Juggling this would be part of the fun.

 

Quote

 

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the parcels bay being a facing connection off the arrivals line. It involves shunting back up the arrivals line. Wouldn't it be better on the other side of the station, where it can be shunted off the departure line? The pilot can still detach vehicles from the rear of arrivals at either platform. In any case, it needs a trap.

Good point but might be difficult to resolve. Is it so bad that it has to be shunted on the arrivals line? We can imagine that site constraints meant this was the only place for van traffic to be handled and that it is suitably signalled.

I don't think we really need to worry about correct trapping in these highly compressed and stylised layouts, do we?

 

Quote

 

This layout is a case where having the main lines coming in at an angle would help, enabling the station to be straight.

A simple box with a straight connection ("TEE") is one of the givens, really. If we change that, then everything is up in the air and completely different solutions will be needed!

 

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

  • RMweb Premium
40 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Here's an improved version, still only 4' long. I used code 100 templates, but the only difference is the symmetric 3 way, and if that's actually the code 75 asymmetric one it won't have anything to do with the price of fish.

Hidden2.png.287efca1e4fee41bb6d2236b9227e3ff.png

Obviously more tracks at the Alternate destinations are possible, but I'd be tempted to keep it to no more than 2 - the idea is to eliminate a FY, not create a vast amount of hidden storage.

 

This allows a slow train to leave Minories, and head to the Alternate Destination. Subsequently a fast train leaves and runs directly to Seironim. The slow train backs into the Seironim Alternate Destination, and then proceeds to Seironim, having been overtaken en-route by the fast one. It's basically a really dreadful magic show :) Alternatively a loco could sit on the bypass and take a train back to either side from the alternate destination.

 

Adding a shunt neck for Seironim allows it to be shunted using the outbound track without interfering with operations at Minories/ MAD/ arrivals at Seironim. Minories would be shunted using the MAD lines.

You could also shuttle trains back and forth between the SAD and the MAD via the bypass. The viewing public would hear them but never see them. It might even drive them MAD (yes, I know that's a bit SAD...).

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

What's currently being discussed is very similar to something I've had rattling in my head for a while. But the version would go 'Terminus - FY - Terminus' and have a scenic section in front of the FY. I imagine it's originally a town that had 2 terminus stations with the mainlines coming from the FY at each end, then a 'Joint Line' (scenic in front of the FY) connecting between the 2. I've never managed to come up with a design for it that I'm happy with but Minories always seems to feature. The plus points are that the FY need only be a couple of loops in each direction with no big hand from the sky required to turn engines around. The 'Joint Line' section creates more scenic space to include other features like an engine shed/turntable, goods sidings, or carriage sidings, and also creates an on-scene head shunt to access those items if they are along side the terminus as well, like the idea of a train ferry a few pages ago (another excuse for the 2 stations; a 'town' station and a 'marine' station). Only one shed/turntable would be required and could cater to both terminus stations...

 

But very much running before walking there!

 

I was thinking about a few other comments that have appeared recently including tracks leaving at the back make traversers awkward, viewing minories from the opposite side, and the idea of a branch line station that sits in front of the fiddle yard. I've attached some crude plans below, viewing minories from the other side means the tracks head off-scene at the front which makes using a traverser FY an easier concept, plus all the dead space that's usually at the front is now at the back and easier to add buildings to that would otherwise be hiding the throat point work from the viewer.

 

No reason why the original unaltered plan shouldn't work viewed that way, however I remember a layout in an old Railway Modeller which wasn't minories but had a similar size station and a couple of carriage sidings in front of it, so in the first plan below I've added a long bay platform and a couple of carriage sidings along side, all accessed by a trailing point beside the pilot spur. I'm not overly happy with this and it does add another reverse curve for stock leaving the inner carriage siding. Plus carriage sidings in a cramped urban grot environment doesn't feel that likely. I've added the loco spur to all 3 plans just to see how much could squeeze in a cramped space, but I doubt it's necessary in these designs as there's other places for a pilot to go.

 

Plan 2 swaps the carriage sidings out for a branch platform with run-around. No additional reverse curves added this time (not counting the loco release) and it is again only attached to the mainline by a trailing connection which would be fine if the branch has it's own dedicated loco and carriages. Visually, it also helps add a reason as to why the minories throat point work is on a big S curve as the mainlines now kind of line up with the branch platform and create the excuse that the station was expanded at a later date from the original build. The down side is that because the mainline leaves scene at the front and the branch is quite close at that location, a traverser FY would not work easily.

 

The third plan replaces the passenger branch with a goods branch. It is imagined that outside of peak passenger periods, a freight could arrive in a platform then shunt across to the front of the layout. Trailing connection to the mainlines again, and the big bay platform is also back. There are reverse curves accessing the goods area, but this should be less of a visual issue if it's only 4 wheeled wagons heading across. A goods shed on scene could help hide the hole in the sky, and a goods branch to another facility (coal yard?) runs alongside the mainlines so off scene it would just run onto the traverser. It adds a bit more operational variation by adding freight and looks a good excuse for the minories S bend too. The fact that the goods part is mostly there just to be a run-around means there wouldn't usually be a train hiding the view of the rest of the station.

 

1160658231_Plan2.jpg.bfb0bd92d843ac7052902390ae68729b.jpg

 

All these designs should keep within the minories throat 4 point length and with a bit of design finesse the bridge across the middle is easily added to help break the compact nature of the scene up. It hasn't solved the 'platform 1 arrivals reverse curve' issue, I did try drawing the standard orientated design with the S bend bringing tracks to the front instead, but that just added reverse curves to platform 2 and 3 departures instead.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

I don't wish to urinate on anybody's conflagration, but we seem to have a lack of signalling, I have a feeling some of these plans would need unprototypical sized signal boxes?

 

Mike.

 

I hope you are sitting down but "Good point. Well made".

 

Always a good idea to signal a plan. It is a good test. If a simple station needs a forest of signals, it is probably more "train set" than based on real railway practice.

 

My Sheffield District Railway layout had the signalling drawn with the track. Allowing for some calling on and shunt ahead signals which may not be absolutely vital but I like them, a 25 lever frame does the lot.

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

  • RMweb Premium

I don't see any difficulty in signalling Minories itself prototypically - vide the E.L. Carroll / S.W. Stevens-Stratten New Victoria Line plan I posted a while back. The thing that does need to be considered is space for facing point locking bars, especially between the pair of points that are toe-to-toe on the arrival line - putting in a length of plain line here does also help eliminate the remaining reverse curve in the plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember a layout, or possibly a scheme for one , in one of the magazines which had two termini, supposedly on different lines, and an interlocked  timetable that meant that for each operator the trains were coming from and going to afar. I think they were BLTs but the idea should work with a pair of city termini.

So, for example , Terminus A sends out a not very early morning train to a distant city but when it arrives at Terminus B  (thirty seconds later) It's now a completely different arriving train that left its distant origin very early that morning. It needed a certain amount of ingenuity to balance the workings to make both ends of each convincing and trains such as overnight sleepers would be tricky but the timetable the author had come up with seemed to make sense.

If the two operators were communicating using bell codes or block instruments then for Terminus A the person they were communicating with would just be the next box down the line and vice-versa.

 

I've seen something analogous on American layouts (including Cliff Young's D&RGW and I think also the Gorre and Daphetid) where there are no staging tracks but either end of a point to point layout are next to one another and linked by a connecting track. So, an eastbound freight train departs Westville,  runs the length of whatever two or three times round the basement (or Spaghetti Bowl  ping-pong table) the layout is and arrives at Eastburgh where it's remarshalled. Cars going further east are then trip worked (I don't know the American term for that) supposedly to some other RR's yards but actually arrive at the Westville yard as eastbound cars from a different RR with their car cards (if that's the system in use) duly changed. At least one such design was for a steam age layout  and that, as suggested by Satan's Goldfish,had a single loco depot with turntable shared by both termini so with a dual identity .

Edited by Pacific231G
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
21 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I remember a layout, or possibly a scheme for one , in one of the magazines which had two termini, supposedly on different lines, and an interlocked  timetable that meant that for each operator the trains were coming from and going to afar. I think they were BLTs but the idea should work with a pair of city termini.

So, for example , Terminus A sends out a not very early morning train to a distant city but when it arrives at Terminus B  (thirty seconds later) It's now a completely different arriving train that left its distant origin very early that morning. It needed a certain amount of ingenuity to balance the workings to make both ends of each convincing and trains such as overnight sleepers would be tricky but the timetable the author had come up with seemed to make sense.

If the two operators were communicating using bell codes or block instruments then for Terminus A the person they were communicating with would just be the next box down the line and vice-versa.

 

I've seen something analogous on American layouts (including Cliff Young's D&RGW and I think also the Gorre and Daphetid) where there are no staging tracks but either end of a point to point layout are next to one another and linked by a connecting track. So, an eastbound freight train departs Westville,  runs the length of whatever two or three times round the basement (or Spaghetti Bowl  ping-pong table) the layout is and arrives at Eastburgh where it's remarshalled. Cars going further east are then trip worked (I don't know the American term for that) supposedly to some other RR's yards but actually arrive at the Westville yard as eastbound cars from a different RR with their car cards (if that's the system in use) duly changed. At least one such design was for a steam age layout  and that, as suggested by Satan's Goldfish,had a single loco depot with turntable shared by both termini so with a dual identity .

That sounds like Philip Millard's West Cumberland Lines.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
57 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

I don't wish to urinate on anybody's conflagration, but we seem to have a lack of signalling, I have a feeling some of these plans would need unprototypical sized signal boxes?

 

Mike.

 

Actually my version of Seironim is very similar to something I drew for @Lacathedrale a while ago and is inspired by a real London terminus station he found called, "Greenwich Park". ( @t-b-g may remember this.)

 

When I started drawing it last night, I very much lifted the central loco release / carriage siding idea from that plan but I had no intention to produce a similar throat, it just evolved that way.

 

Greenwich Park had a scissors crossover outside the station and then some simpler crossovers nearer the platforms but all those elements have been compressed and combined due to the space constraints in this project . (You can see the scissors in my Seironim throat design.)

 

Er, so what I'm rambling towards is that there's some real world precedent for a terminus of that overall complexity - although not quite so compressed, of course.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

Actually my version of Seironim is very similar to something I drew for @Lacathedrale a while ago and is inspired by a real London terminus station he found called, "Greenwich Park". ( @t-b-g may remember this.)

 

When I started drawing it last night, I very much lifted the central loco release / carriage siding idea from that plan but I had no intention to produce a similar throat, it just evolved that way.

 

Greenwich Park had a scissors crossover outside the station and then some simpler crossovers nearer the platforms but with the space constraints for this project all those elements have been compressed and combined.

 

Er, so what I'm rambling towards is that there's some precedent for a terminus of that overall complexity - although not quite so compressed, of course.

 

 

A friend of mine is presently starting work on a Greenwich park layout, based on i surviving into BR days and being electrified.

 

I would agree that some of the plans drawn are very railway like and the signalling wouldn't present a problem. One or two were possibly getting a bit too complex to be signalled without a very impressive signalling installation that would have had to be crammed into quite a small space. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the signalling question must boil down to which signals are “in shot” and which not ...... an attempt to signal properly Minories to Seironim would probably implode under compromised overlaps and a cat’s cradle of slotting, whereas in reality there won’t be room for much more than starters and some shunt signals at each.

 

However, scheming each out with a decent length of approach would allow the visible extract to be plausible.

 

I do like how Seironim is shaping-up BTW; a nicely different character.

 

Has the option of running trains M-MAD-reverse-SAD-S been discussed? Useful at of loosing a train for a while?

 

Would I build this lot? Nope! It might be OK for exhibitions with plenty of “crew”, but it would be way too hectic for fun at home. It’s surprising how even two single-track, two platform termini become quite demanding for one person, let alone these animals.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Has the option of running trains M-MAD-reverse-SAD-S been discussed? Useful at of loosing a train for a while?

 

I mentioned it as a way to have overtaking.

 

15 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Would I build this lot? Nope! It might be OK for exhibitions with plenty of “crew”, but it would be way too hectic for fun at home. It’s surprising how even two single-track, two platform termini become quite demanding for one person, let alone these animals.

It would be too much for me too. A single Minories type station with a return loop would be enough for me. Probably too much, I'm probably more of a "one engine in steam" kind of person... I do enjoy designing layouts though.

 

The Minories - Hidden Junctions - Seironim arrangement could be good for a couple of people/ a group to build in a modular fashion. If Person/ Subgroup A builds Minories (and a FY of their choice for solo operation), and Person/ Subgroup B does the same for Seironim, they can then combine it with the hidden junctions module whenever space is available/ at an exhibition to drive each other mad with the extra operational possibilities.

 

4 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

With Zomboid’s centre piece you could have a nice exhibition set up - you’d want multiple operators.  For home use I guess we’d need to ask Zomboid how a curved centre piece would work, to fit into an L shape for a layout room.

 

It's pretty big as it happens. I tried a few ways, which all give pretty much the same footprint, this one with a load of curved points is the smallest by a small margin

HiddenCnr.png.3ac1dcca6b5800cf7a228436b60044ba.png

I haven't tried it with sectional track, that's probably a bridge too far. The S->M main is long enough that there's no need for a separate shunting neck.

 

I think I'd use the straight one if I were building it.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I would agree with many of the comments above. Unless you have a "gang" of like minded people who are willing to either come to your house to operate or go to shows, you can easily try to do to much.

 

I am quite lucky in that I have Buckingham set up permanently at home and apart from present restrictions, regular operating sessions take place. I will never build anything as good to operate. As the "Automatic Crispin" is not yet up and running, it takes two or three people to get the best out of Buckingham. Single handed operation involves much moving about from one station to the other. So I do it from time to time but i doesn't get the best out of the experience of operating the layout.

 

So a layout I can set up at home for a solo running session seems a good idea. Plus it will give my locos and stock, plus those from Sid Stubbs, to have a run out. The two station two fiddle yard option doesn't really fill that role well. I have room to set up an 8ft station plus a 4ft 6" fiddle yard, which really rules out the "scenic fiddle yard" idea, or even the "fan of sidings" fiddle yard.  So mine will almost certainly end up as my "mini minories"(boards and track done now)  plus a traverser (perhaps with a couple of kick back tracks behind the station), in the hope that cutting back on the ambition makes me more likely to get it done in a better timescale. 

 

It doesn't stop the mind thinking about other designs though!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I really like Chris116’s Twig Street Branch addition to Minories, and Harlequin’s Seironim is quite remarkable in just 7’.   I’m convinced by the elegance of Zomboid’s hidden junction, so have no desire to try and add to any of these: I think they complement Minories really well.

 

I did want to have another look at a junction throat for Minories, as Compound2632 spotted my "Fig 3: Double Junction" yesterday doesn’t allow full Minories operation.  Growing up near Birmingham I was quite used to Moor St (before the Snow Hill Tunnel was reinstated), so three approach tracks to a three platform station was normal to me – IIRC, the 3rd line was bidirectional for ECS movements out to Tyseley coach yard (and used single slips to reach all platforms?).  I think Model Trains magazine did a feature on Moor St in the early 1980s, but my copy is long gone now.  Can I replicate that kind of operation here though?

 

(Note: I’ve given myself an extra 6” for the pointwork – 4’ rather than 3’6”).

 

Fig A: “Adding an ECS line”

 

(Sorry, pictures no longer available)

 

I don’t really like having the double slip so central – every train movement other than Platform 1 Down departures must pass through it (8 out of 9 routes).  In Nearholmer’s sketch yesterday there was a single slip for the third running line (the Twig branch) but it only served Platform 3.

I can't see this getting approved.

 

Fig B: “ECS line to the North”

 

(Sorry, pictures no longer available)

 

I’m not sure this is an improvement – every ECS movement must go through E and cross / block both UP and Down Lines (a Double Slip would introduce a reverse curve, but this alternative sends Platform 1 ECS movements through E as well).  My guess: not approved.

 

Fig C: “Double spine”

 

(Sorry, pictures no longer available)

 

Although this is starting to lose the simplicity of Minories, a second spine reduces the pressure on E: Platform 1 Down departures and Platform 1 ECS movements go through F, and with the remaining ECS movements using the central spine only 5 of 9 routes now pass through E.

 

Fig D: “Double Parallelogram”

 

(Sorry, pictures no longer available)

 

Adding a second single slip adds redundancy as it means departures from Platforms 2 or 3 can use the central spine as an alternative to E (as can light engine movements from the Loco Siding to Platforms 2 and 3). 

 

If the central spine is used for Platform 2 and 3 departures, then only incoming trains need to pass through E, which is on the Up line anyway and is only preceded by a trailing point.

 

Platform 1 Down trains go through the second single slip point in a trailing direction.

 

Triple simultaneous operation is now possible: Platform 1 ECS or light engine / Platform 2 Down / Platform 3 Up.

 

Although I think this works geometrically and route-by-route, I don’t know enough to know if this would be how the prototype would approach the problem?  The point has been made about signalling, which I'm afraid I don't know enough about to comment on, sorry.

 

A final comment re: Moor St.  In the late 70s / 80s there was a fourth line adjacent to Platform 3 for storage.  Here we have the kickback siding instead.  As all trains were DMU’s by then, there were no loco movements (and I think the traversers had been removed).

 

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
Edited for text only as photo no longer available
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
33 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I mentioned it as a way to have overtaking.

 

It would be too much for me too. A single Minories type station with a return loop would be enough for me. Probably too much, I'm probably more of a "one engine in steam" kind of person... I do enjoy designing layouts though.

 

The Minories - Hidden Junctions - Seironim arrangement could be good for a couple of people/ a group to build in a modular fashion. If Person/ Subgroup A builds Minories (and a FY of their choice for solo operation), and Person/ Subgroup B does the same for Seironim, they can then combine it with the hidden junctions module whenever space is available/ at an exhibition to drive each other mad with the extra operational possibilities.

 

 

It's pretty big as it happens. I tried a few ways, which all give pretty much the same footprint, this one with a load of curved points is the smallest by a small margin

HiddenCnr.png.3ac1dcca6b5800cf7a228436b60044ba.png

I haven't tried it with sectional track, that's probably a bridge too far. The S->M main is long enough that there's no need for a separate shunting neck.

 

I think I'd use the straight one if I were building it.

 

I think there'd be reservations about using so many Setrack curved points, so I wouldn't try it either.  Obviously this fits and works - so answers the question, thank you. 

 

Looking at it, I do begin to wonder if a simple staging loop, or even one on each side, as Satan's Goldfish suggested earlier today, might not be an easier option at this juncture?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I really like Chris116’s Twig Street Branch addition to Minories, and Harlequin’s Seironim is quite remarkable in just 7’.   I’m convinced by the elegance of Zomboid’s hidden junction, so have no desire to try and add to any of these: I think they complement Minories really well.

 

I did want to have another look at a junction throat for Minories, as Compound2632 spotted my "Fig 3: Double Junction" yesterday doesn’t allow full Minories operation.  Growing up near Birmingham I was quite used to Moor St (before the Snow Hill Tunnel was reinstated), so three approach tracks to a three platform station was normal to me – IIRC, the 3rd line was bidirectional for ECS movements out to Tyseley coach yard (and used single slips to reach all platforms?).  I think Model Trains magazine did a feature on Moor St in the early 1980s, but my copy is long gone now.  Can I replicate that kind of operation here though?

 

(Note: I’ve given myself an extra 6” for the pointwork – 4’ rather than 3’6”).

 

Fig A: “Adding an ECS line”

 

1595852349_DoubleMinories20.jpg.e618ad3861e390822d9b54554b1f80c3.jpg

 

 

 

I don’t really like having the double slip so central – every train movement other than Platform 1 Down departures must pass through it (8 out of 9 routes).  In Nearholmer’s sketch yesterday there was a single slip for the third running line (the Twig branch) but it only served Platform 3.

I can't see this getting approved.

 

Fig B: “ECS line to the North”

 

318822349_DoubleMinories21.jpg.f4177b9873f9bd1db81bbffda611ca53.jpg

 

 

I’m not sure this is an improvement – every ECS movement must go through E and cross / block both UP and Down Lines (a Double Slip would introduce a reverse curve, but this alternative sends Platform 1 ECS movements through E as well).  My guess: not approved.

 

Fig C: “Double spine”

 

584130836_DoubleMinories22.jpg.4582f765edcc6b47a3ea0adfad6cd6d1.jpg

 

 

Although this is starting to lose the simplicity of Minories, a second spine reduces the pressure on E: Platform 1 Down departures and Platform 1 ECS movements go through F, and with the remaining ECS movements using the central spine only 5 of 9 routes now pass through E.

 

Fig D: “Double Parallelogram”

 

518322126_DoubleMinories23.jpg.faddf27337b78937409216bae6b0f4d3.jpg

 

 

Adding a second single slip adds redundancy as it means departures from Platforms 2 or 3 can use the central spine as an alternative to E (as can light engine movements from the Loco Siding to Platforms 2 and 3). 

 

If the central spine is used for Platform 2 and 3 departures, then only incoming trains need to pass through E, which is on the Up line anyway and is only preceded by a trailing point.

 

Platform 1 Down trains go through the second single slip point in a trailing direction.

 

Triple simultaneous operation is now possible: Platform 1 ECS or light engine / Platform 2 Down / Platform 3 Up.

 

Although I think this works geometrically and route-by-route, I don’t know enough to know if this would be how the prototype would approach the problem?  The point has been made about signalling, which I'm afraid I don't know enough about to comment on, sorry.

 

A final comment re: Moor St.  In the late 70s / 80s there was a fourth line adjacent to Platform 3 for storage.  Here we have the kickback siding instead.  As all trains were DMU’s by then, there were no loco movements (and I think the traversers had been removed).

 

 

On mine, I am quite happy to say that the carriage sidings are situated beyond the scenic break (fiddle yard) and just work an ECS along the line you have marked as the Down line. As mine isn't in London, it is my "up" line! I can still have an ECS departing at the same time as a train arrives but as a sole operator, I think one move at a time might be enough! Driving the pilot with the ECS plus following it up the platform with the loco that brought the train in will be plenty to keep me occupied.

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

I've been wondering about how it could work with an inbound relief line (similar to the ECS line, but I don't see why it would have to be able to access all platforms), but I can't think of much that'll work without introducing slips galore, which I'd rather avoid. It would probably need at least one more platform to justify such a track in my mind, too. Easy to add another one or two next to platform 3, but not without a load of slips.

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

I think there'd be reservations about using so many Setrack curved points, so I wouldn't try it either.  Obviously this fits and works - so answers the question, thank you. 

They're streamline curved points. Using set track curved points would probably mean it would curve through more than 90*.

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

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

I've been wondering about how it could work with an inbound relief line (similar to the ECS line, but I don't see why it would have to be able to access all platforms), but I can't think of much that'll work without introducing slips galore, which I'd rather avoid. It would probably need at least one more platform to justify such a track in my mind, too. Easy to add another one or two next to platform 3, but not without a load of slips.

 

Fair point - I'm just going off my memories of Moor St - IIRC the ECS line (which was "south" of the running lines as we have them) could reach all the way across to Platform 1 (the "northernmost" - as here).  Afraid I've not been able to find a plan or photo to check.

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
missing )
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Minories + Interstitial + Seironim would be 18ft long (~5.5m). Big but not so enormous that it couldn't be set up at home somewhere.

 

Hook it up to a Bambleweeny 57 sub-meson brain and give it a nice hot cup of tea... Sorry, I mean hook it up to DCC computer control system and you could easily run it single-handedly, in theory.

 

(In practice, the hours of fiddling around with electronics and debugging computer programs might suck all the joy out of it.)

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
17 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

They're streamline curved points. Using set track curved points would probably mean it would curve through more than 90*.

 

Sorry - I wasn't clear in my quick response: I was agreeing with the point in your accompanying text that changing the plan you have for one using Setrack points instead wouldn't be wise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Minories + Interstitial + Seironim would be 18ft long (~5.5m). Big but not so enormous that it couldn't be set up at home somewhere.

 

Hook it up to a Bambleweeny 57 sub-meson brain and give it a nice hot cup of tea... Sorry, I mean hook it up to DCC computer control system and you could easily run it single-handedly, in theory.

 

(In practice, the hours of fiddling around with electronics and debugging computer programs might scoop all the joy out of it.)

 

 

If I had 18ft to play with, I am pretty sure Minories would not be the plan that came into my head. Taking one highly crammed in station, designed for minimum space, adding a second crammed station and then adding a 4ft hidden section between them just doesn't sound like the way I would go if I had the luxury of that length to use.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...