Theory of General Minories

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 02/12/2020 at 23:23, thegreenhowards said:

This is my first post on this fascinating thread having skim read much of it over the last few days. I am designing an 0 gauge layout for our club's new venture into the senior scale loosely based on the Minories plan. This is what we've settled on at the moment.

 

It's designed to fit into a space in our clubroom with a wall which projects out at the right end (as shown) but still allows room for a narrow shelf in front of it. The scenic length is 19' with the shelf being another 10' which can support cassettes for a fiddle yard. This area is where members sit and socialise (Covid permitting) on our main club night, so the layout will have to pack down easily and just be put up on '0' gauge nights. 

 

The layout is designed to be exhibitable and for exhibitions can have a wider fiddle yard board with traverser fiddle yard and a narrow scenic section in front which we plan will be an additional goods facility. It will be viewed and operated from the bottom of the plan in the clubrooms, but viewed from the top at exhibitions.

 

I started with a classic Minories but then was asked to add in more goods interest. I have done this in two ways:

1. A line to a hidden goods cassette (bottom left) which I envisage as through goods to Billingsgate fish market or similar. The line would descend and enter a tunnel rather like platform 15 at the old King's Cross. The 4' cassette can hold a J50 + 6 vans and a brake van in 0 gauge.

2. Rather more goods on the kick back (top right) than the classic Minories with a line which can extend in future 

 

The Peco pointwork in O gauge has an 8 degree angle which makes for gentler double slips, so getting round some of the problems listed over the last few pages.

 

I'd be interested in any comments the 'Minories experts' on here may have on the plan.

 

Thanks

 

Andy

Hi Andy, as others have commented, I like the look of this - would be well worth seeing when the time / opportunity comes.

 

I’m not an ‘expert’ by any means, but as a frequent contributor to this thread could I make one suggestion (which could be classed as “contra-Minories”):

 

From the point of view of operating a model railway, I just wonder if the enhanced Goods facilities might benefit from a run-round of some sort in the Goods Yard area for added flexibility?  Two possible suggestions could be A or B?
 

 

It could be operated without a run-round using a Shunter, but it’s just a thought, Keith.

Edited October 7, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[thegreenhowards]

9 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Hi Andy

It looks fine to me and a layout I'll definitely want to go and see when it gets exhibited (Coulsdon should make it accessible for me.)  I like the idea of it being both an exhibition layout and one you can enjoy operating on club nights and not just to prepare for exhibition. (I sometimes think the exhibition tail tends to wag the operating the layout just to enjoy it dog) 

Looking at the plan. I can't see any reverse curves through pointwork for any normal routes, the loco spur is in a logical place  and I like the idea of the goods line disappearing behind the terminus (from an exhibtion visitor's point of view)  That's not disimilar to what Geoff Ashdown did with Tower Pier - though his goods line to St. Katherine's dock and the corresponding sidings were a separate line from the passenger terminus - something I wasn't that keen on- but it worked well with a hinged road in front of the terminus covering the hidden sidings representing St. Katherine's dock.

Do you know what sort of stock you'll be running on it and what sort of train lengths the platforms can handle?

I think my only caveat would be that if you're not using automatic couplers (or even if you are and they need help) the good sidings may be a bit of a stretch- over two foot- across the station platforms and their canopies)

 

 

 

Thanks for your comments David,

 

I think there is one reverse curve - heading from fiddle to hidden goods cassette. But as this will only be 4 wheel vans and an 0-6-0T I thought that was acceptable. 

 

It’s a club layout so democracy will rule stock wise. Given the O gauge member’s interests it’s likely to be A LNER/SR joint Station but could be set in eras, 2,3,4 or 5 and will probably do all of those at some point. I suspect that the infrastructure wouldn’t change much, so we’d just need to swap some road vehicles, signage and people over and could run another era. I think we’ll start with 1930ish. That will mean a mix of 6 wheelers and bogie stock. I’m building a Kirk Gresley artic twin as we speak. I think the LNER Passenger rakes will be:

1. 5*51ft Gresley non corridors (two twins and a BT). The platforms are 8ft plus another 2ft before the point work, so this plus 2 * N2 will be close to the limit for the two main platforms.

2. A quad art (the platforms are very marginal for this, so it may have to run as 7 vehicles rather than 8.

3. A string of 6 wheelers.

 

I can’t speak for the SR side, but some Kirk Maunsells And some 6 wheelers are likely - there’s a lot of kit building to do!

 

None of us have much experience of 0 gauge so we’ll be leaning as we go (brave or foolhardy?).  I’m going to try the dingham auto coupling system but I don’t know whether it will work for us.

 

Andy

 

 

[thegreenhowards]

26 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Hi Andy, as others have commented, I like the look of this - would be well worth seeing when the time / opportunity comes.

 

I’m not an ‘expert’ by any means, but as a frequent contributor to this thread could I make one suggestion (which could be classed as “contra-Minories”):

 

From the point of view of operating a model railway, I just wonder if the enhanced Goods facilities might benefit from a run-round of some sort in the Goods Yard area for added flexibility?  Two possible suggestions could be A or B?
 

It could be operated without a run-round using a Shunter, but it’s just a thought, Keith.

Thanks Keith,

 

This has been an area of debate in the club! So much so that I had to do a complete sequence on paper to prove that it could be operated without a run round. I intend to use the passenger turnover loco as a goods pilot. Alternatively a pilot could sit in the goods yard on the track you’ve used as a run round (in B) which I’d intended as a brake van line. We looked at your A, but it’s very tight without a point over the baseboard joint. I didn’t consider B as I thought more tracks under the road bridge would be unprototypical, but it’s a possibility. It would be a bit strange with the run round under a road bridge though? My proposal was a third different option as below.

I feel this overcomplicates the layout and spoils the simplicity of Minories but I’d welcome feedback.

 

By the way it also shows our other option for station building - comments welcome on that as well.
 

Andy

Edited December 3, 2020 by thegreenhowards
Inserting plan from different computer

[Satan's Goldfish]

45 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Thanks Keith,

 

This has been an area of debate in the club! So much so that I had to do a complete sequence on paper to prove that it could be operated without a run round. I intend to use the passenger turnover loco as a goods pilot. Alternatively a pilot could sit in the goods yard on the track you’ve used as a run round (in B) which I’d intended as a brake van line. We looked at your A, but it’s very tight without a point over the baseboard joint. I didn’t consider B as I thought more tracks under the road bridge would be unprototypical, but it’s a possibility. It would be a bit strange with the run round under a road bridge though? My proposal was a third different option as below.

I feel this overcomplicates the layout and spoils the simplicity of Minories but I’d welcome feedback.

 

By the way it also shows our other option for station building - comments welcome on that as well.
 

Andy

 

On your suggested run-around option; could you turn the access crossover around to be trailing onto the departure line rather than facing? Would give you an extra stub siding hiding behind the goods shed, and a trailing point onto the mainline instead of facing (no fpl needed), so goods could depart from that route if needed.

[thegreenhowards]

1 minute ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

 

On your suggested run-around option; could you turn the access crossover around to be trailing onto the departure line rather than facing? Would give you an extra stub siding hiding behind the goods shed, and a trailing point onto the mainline instead of facing (no fpl needed), so goods could depart from that route if needed.

I could do that. But its primary purpose is as a loco spur for the turnover engine. As such it would be more awkward to use with a trailing point. I suppose if it was more prototypical that would be a good argument for such a change.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

Peco don't make any claims about the crossing angle, which as you say, is not 12° on the Large and the Curved points. All they say is that where the centre lines are 1 inch apart the angle will be 12° and in that respect those turnouts do meet the standard.

 

I did not intend to suggest that Peco are making false claims; merely pointing out a trap for the unwary, one that has caught me out in the past. 

[Pacific231G]

38 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Thanks for your comments David,

 

I think there is one reverse curve - heading from fiddle to hidden goods cassette. But as this will only be 4 wheel vans and an 0-6-0T I thought that was acceptable. 

 

Hi Andy

That reverse curve is not a problem and wouldn't be even with pasenger stock as it's very shallow. You don't need to avoid them completely; It's really the immediate ones through pointwork that are problematic.

If you do include a run round I'd suggest Keith's s arrangement B as it means that goods shunting won't stop the upper platform being used for passenger trains and it would be particularly useful for a shunting loco working the extended goods sidings in exhibition mode.  (That arrangement also reminds me of Borchester Market which can't be bad.  I don't think you need a passenger run-round and if this is an inner city terminus I doubt it would have one* At quiet times a station pilot could move coaches to releae a train very easily and at busy times the opposite platform would probably be occupied so making the releasing crossover useless.

The hidden goods cassette could represent almost anything off-stage (I'm thinking docks but it could be a factory) so there'd be no need for a run round on that side.

 

*I always recall that the old Fort William station, which had three platform faces, was built with a loco release crossover but it got so little use that it was taken out in I think the early 1950s. Most trains reversed there but those coming from Glasgow usually shed a vehicle or two before proceeding to Mallaig and gained them when coming from Mallaig. It was fairly quiet most of the day but got very intense when trains, sometimes with a relief portion in summer, were coming and going from both Mallaig and Glasgow,

[thegreenhowards]

28 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Hi Andy

That reverse curve is not a problem and wouldn't be even with pasenger stock as it's very shallow. You don't need to avoid them completely; It's really the immediate ones through pointwork that are problematic.

If you do include a run round I'd suggest Keith's s arrangement B as it means that goods shunting won't stop the upper platform being used for passenger trains and it would be particularly useful for a shunting loco working the extended goods sidings in exhibition mode.  (That arrangement also reminds me of Borchester Market which can't be bad.  I don't think you need a passenger run-round and if this is an inner city terminus I doubt it would have one* At quiet times a station pilot could move coaches to releae a train very easily and at busy times the opposite platform would probably be occupied so making the releasing crossover useless.

The hidden goods cassette could represent almost anything off-stage (I'm thinking docks but it could be a factory) so there'd be no need for a run round on that side.

 

*I always recall that the old Fort William station, which had three platform faces, was built with a loco release crossover but it got so little use that it was taken out in I think the early 1950s. Most trains reversed there but those coming from Glasgow usually shed a vehicle or two before proceeding to Mallaig and gained them when coming from Mallaig. It was fairly quiet most of the day but got very intense when trains, sometimes with a relief portion in summer, were coming and going from both Mallaig and Glasgow,

Thanks David,

 

That's reassuring about the reverse curve.

 

I have drawn up Keith's 'B' and will put it to our members for consideration. I rather like it.

I agree about the passenger run round. Moorgate didn't work like that, so nor will we! It also gives an excuse for more engines - no bad thing.

 

I envisage the goods cassette representing a line of 2-3 miles in length, possibly serving more than one destination. I have a thing about fish vans, so Billingsgate will be one of them. A train will go down there; the cassettes will be swapped over; and a different train will emerge later.

 

Andy

Edited December 3, 2020 by thegreenhowards
adding plan

[Pacific231G]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

The Peco large radius points don't actually conform to their standard streamline geometry - the crossing angle is less than 12°; that angle is only achieved at the end of the unit, the curve continuing through the crossing. This results in an unprototypical S-bend if one uses a pair as an ordinary crossover and even more problems if you try to trim them to achieve a nearer-scale four-foot (i.e. track centres of 45 mm rather than 2") and use them in conjunction with a slip or crossing.

Phii is quite correct. it's the final divergence angle of 12 degrees that makes it possible to put Peco's various pointwork  together without surgery to make up faiirly complex pointwork. Such turnouts, (referred to as circular curve turnouts in the NR track design handbook)  are perfectly prototypical, though less used,  but would never be used to make up a straight crossover.  That does make Peco's long turnout less useful than it might otherwise be but you couldn't AFAIK build a turnout with a 12 degree crossing angle with a much greater radius than their medium radius turnout. It would be useful if Peco also produced a version of the longer point with a straight crossing at say 10 degrees or even some code 75 turnouts using the geometry of their 83 line North American range with European timbering *but they know their markets.

 

I know that people have shortened a pair of Peco's long turnouts to get a crossover with a nearer-scale six foot (actually 2 metre) way. There was an entire article in Loco Revue about turning Peco Streamline into "hyper-realiste" track. You'd still have the non-prototypical S curve through the crossover but less extreme and that wouldn't be compatible with the rest of Peco's pointwork with 12 degree divergences.

 

* I know someone who built a French prototype layout using Shinohara track and ,though the N. American sleepering is much closer (and the sleepers narrower) than anythnig used in France, it actually looked very convincing. Peco weren't entirely wrong about their 60cm in H0 sleeper spacing making layouts and track formations look longer in OO than they really are but that's been an endless debate. 

 

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I know that people have shortened a pair of Peco's long turnouts to get a crossover with a nearer-scale six foot (actually 2 metre) way. There was an entire article in Loco Revue about turning Peco Streamline into "hyper-realiste" track. You'd still have the non-prototypical S curve through the crossover but less extreme and that wouldn't be compatible with the rest of Peco's pointwork with 12 degree divergences.

 

I wrote four foot when I meant six foot, of course. In 00, best not to get too bogged down in the dimension of the six foot; better to stick to track centres! 

[Joseph_Pestell]

For those that have not seen the new thread, we will soon have Wayne Kinney's east-to-build pointwork kits in 00 and EM which resolve all these geometry problems by following prototype practice.

[Budgie]

Can you give us details of this new thread?

[Joseph_Pestell]

5 minutes ago, Budgie said:

Can you give us details of this new thread?

New range of simple to assemble OO/EM gauge point kits - Page 2 - Handbuilt Track & Templot - RMweb

[Free At Last]

13 minutes ago, Budgie said:

Can you give us details of this new thread?

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/160234-new-range-of-simple-to-assemble-ooem-gauge-point-kits/

[Joseph_Pestell]

9 minutes ago, Free At Last said:

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/160234-new-range-of-simple-to-assemble-ooem-gauge-point-kits/

Thanks. I don't know why links are not posting properly for me. They did until about 10 days ago.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

2 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Thanks Keith,

 

This has been an area of debate in the club! So much so that I had to do a complete sequence on paper to prove that it could be operated without a run round. I intend to use the passenger turnover loco as a goods pilot. Alternatively a pilot could sit in the goods yard on the track you’ve used as a run round (in B) which I’d intended as a brake van line. We looked at your A, but it’s very tight without a point over the baseboard joint. I didn’t consider B as I thought more tracks under the road bridge would be unprototypical, but it’s a possibility. It would be a bit strange with the run round under a road bridge though? My proposal was a third different option as below.

I feel this overcomplicates the layout and spoils the simplicity of Minories but I’d welcome feedback.

 

By the way it also shows our other option for station building - comments welcome on that as well.
 

Andy

Hi Andy, thanks for the additional info: I’d guessed the short stub siding in front of the warehouse might be a loco pocket for the passenger part of the station.  Operationally, I imagine the prototype would still prefer a trailing point, but for a model railway compromise it fits quite neatly as shown.

I’d also guessed the second siding by the milk depot might be for Guards Vans: as you indicate, you need it to operate without a runround.  I’d agree there could be reservations about my B suggestion on the grounds of the cost of a bridge for an extra track - fair point for a democratic discussion - I like the way you’ve drawn it up for the discussion to take place, it shows the choice very well.

Looking at your alternative version, I agree it starts to look a bit complex - this was an idea I had - shown as C:

 

Track C is not a runround but an alternative route for engines to get from the loco pocket to the Goods area without interfering with the station throat.

 

In sum, I’d agree A restricts trains to being too short / is likely to be too tight.  I’d put both the original and B to the panel for discussion as alternatives.  If they go for an option without a runaround, I’d suggest C might be an option as there will be more station pilot / light engine moves?  Hope it helps, Keith.

[Zomboid]

Who needs a run round? More engines + more shunting = more fun.

[Pacific231G]

Good news everybody *

I've just laid out my modified Minories, substituting a medium Y for the 'country ' end of the back to back points and, using one long turnout for the final exit point.

 

With a variety of H0 stock,10-11 inches long I'm not getting any apparent buffer locking on any of the six routes (I use Kadees in any case but it's the complete separation of the corridor connections that I don't like with the original CJF plan)  This does introduce an additional reverse curve between the final exit point and the now Y point that forms the first crossover with it but, by using a long point as the final exit point, the throwover is acceptable.   Inbound main to P1 is still the worst case but event that avoids buffer lock (just!) .

 

This compares with the back to back points using the original plan's nominal three foot radius points where the throwover is so severes that one of the buffers is effectively lined up with the coupling of the next coach. You get the same result with a straight crossover made up from a pair of medium points,  as here.

I

 

*I love it when Prof. Farnsworth introduces the next near suicidal mission for Planet Express with those words 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2020 by Pacific231G
clarity

[Keith Addenbrooke]

6 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Good news everybody *

I've just laid out my modified Minories, substituting a medium Y for the 'country ' end of the back to back points and, using one long turnout for the final exit point.

 

With a variety of H0 stock,10-11 inches long I'm not getting any apparent buffer locking on any of the six routes (I use Kadees in any case but it's the complete separation of the corridor connections that I don't like with the original CJF plan)  This does introduce an additional reverse curve between the final exit point and the now Y point that forms the first crossover with it but, by using a long point as the final exit point, the throwover is acceptable.   Arrivals to P1 is still the worst case but just avoids buffer lock.

 

This compares with the back to back points using the original plan's nominal three foot radius points where the throwover is so severes that one of the buffers is effectively lined up with the coupling of the next coach. You get the same result with a straight crossover made up from a pair of medium points,  as here.

I

 

*I love it when Prof. Farnsworth introduces the next near suicidal mission for Planet Express with those words 

 

 

Presumably using another Y-point for the loco pocket siding has also ensured that the ‘diamond’ retains parallel sides and avoid problems at the end of P1 and P2?  It also looks like the point at the end of P3 may be a third Y-point, so there is an equivalent reverse curve (but no worse) into the Goods Headshunt, thereby bringing everything back into line again to fit on narrow baseboards?  Looks like a well-worked solution that could also be used by others.

[St Enodoc]

11 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Peco weren't entirely wrong about their 60cm in H0 sleeper spacing making layouts and track formations look longer in OO than they really are but that's been an endless debate. 

"The fine scale longer look" as I recall.

[Pacific231G]

17 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Presumably using another Y-point for the loco pocket siding has also ensured that the ‘diamond’ retains parallel sides and avoid problems at the end of P1 and P2?  It also looks like the point at the end of P3 may be a third Y-point, so there is an equivalent reverse curve (but no worse) into the Goods Headshunt, thereby bringing everything back into line again to fit on narrow baseboards?  Looks like a well-worked solution that could also be used by others.

Yes, I tried using a normal medium point for the "loco pocket"- probably lengthened as a departure only bay for autorails* and to park postales etc.- but you do need that symmetry to make the diamond work. The point accessing platform 3 and the goods headshunt is indeed to bring platform three back to the "horizontal" I didn't want to use too many Ys as they tend to produce an unnatural wriggle to trains moving over them. The reverse curve into the goods headshunt is of no consequence as it'll only be handling wagons, mostly four wheel, so buffer locking shouldn't be a problem.

 

*I'm seeing the bay as enabling scenes like this. 

 

 

 

Though without the rain or Deneuve.

I do notice from these screen grabs how distanced the tracks are. Room for the inspector to do his wheel tapping, brake examination etc. (though you don't see that much space in Paris or Lille. Cherbourg used to have an arrivals and a departures platform with two sidings between them and two bays on the departure side. The arrivals platform had a more modest building with the cab rank etc. but the main passenger facilities of ticket office, waiting and refreshment room are in the building beyond the bays. There was also a rather ungainly overall barrel roof the length of the station building but it didn't survive the war.  If you can take your eyes off Deneuve, you'll also notice that there are no releasing crossovers. 

 

It's actually amzing how much prototype information you can glean from even a shortish movie scene like this. even down to the typography and format of platform departure signs.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2020 by Pacific231G
Grammar

[Pacific231G]

14 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

"The fine scale longer look" as I recall.

And they weren't alone. When Wrenn started marketing their originally export only track, with H0 sleeper spacing, to the British market, they also described it as fine scale for the more discerning modeller  (I think it was also a bit less "universal" than their domestic range so with finer checkrail and crossing clearances)

I know this is not a popular view in fine scale circles but, if you're using much sharper pointwork and curves than prototype, a scale sleeper spacing tends to emphasise that.  I think it's because the number of sleepers is one of our unconscious visual cues to length but it also seems to emphasise the narrowness of OO track.  I've  noticed this even on layouts like Buckingham and Borchester Market . 

Edited December 4, 2020 by Pacific231G

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

If you can take your eyes off Deneuve

You must be joking.

[johnhutnick]

Attached for general interest is a track plan drafted by "Twentefan" on forum.3rail.nl in 2009.  It is a 2-rail plan.  

[RJS1977]

21 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

 

I know this is not a popular view in fine scale circles but, if you're using much sharper pointwork and curves than prototype, a scale sleeper spacing tends to emphasise that.  I think it's because the number of sleepers is one of our unconscious visual cues to length but it also seems to emphasise the narrowness of OO track.  I've  noticed this even on layouts like Buckingham and Borchester Market . 

 

I hadn't thought of curve radii, but even on straight 00 track, '4mm scale' sleepers look wrong to me, as the sleepers are out of proportion to the track gauge.

 

However 'scale' sleepers would be all right for 4'0" gauge lines like the Padarn and the Saundersfoot.