Theory of General Minories

[Pacific231G]

15 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I have carried out very similar exercises several times over the years, tweaking the plan here and there. A few layouts have resulted, including the present effort which has the station throat only two points long, allowing great long sweeping curves which suit corridor stock better.

 

I don't know if it was ever written down but I wonder if CJF was aware of the problems caused by the overhang on a corridor carriage, which is why he suggested it as a suburban type service, where non corridor stock was more likely to be used. It does away with that problem easily! 

Good afternoon Tony

CJF was most certainly aware of the problem as the whole purpose of Minories was to minimise it. To connect up and down main lines to three platforms requires six routes. With an equivalent minimum length straight throat (four points long) you get the problem of an immediate reverse curve over a crossover on four of them. Cyril Freezer's genius insight was to realise that by  forming the two crossovers with opposite handed points, those four affected routes could be reduced to just one and. even on that one route, the problem should be no worse than with an equivalent straight crossover.  

In that regard I don't think Minories can be improved on. All that I've done is to use a Y and a larger radius straight turnout to minimise it on that one route. The cost of that is an increase in length of 40mm and a gentler but still unseparated reverse curve in two more of the six routes.

The most elegant solution, as we've discussed many times, is to have an angled approach (whether or not that angle is continued into a longer curve). That enables the avoidance of any reverse curves but, with no further curvatures, will need an angle twice that of the crossing angle of the points. 

 

For the big railway this is not usually a problem. Even when constrained by space (or city land prices) they generally have as much length as they need to use far gentler turnouts that don't require such measures. If they were they could of course use a scissors crossover or other bespoke pointwork.

 

I think CJF's suggestion of suburban stock and turnover loco working was to get an intensively worked layout into the space normally required for a BLT*. Minories was also the first RM Plan of the Month published following Tri-ang's launch of TT-3 the month before in March 1957. The stock initially on offer for that included a Jinty 0-6-0 tank, a brake second and a composite suburban coach and a handful of wagons. Main line stock came months later. Though I suspect that he had been playing around with the concept for some time, Minories published signed as as five foot long folding TT-3 layout (hence the sight vagueness about it's length in 00  which went from 6ft 6ins to 6ft 8ins between the RM article and its appearance in the first edition of 60 Plans for Small Railways the folllowing year) Just with that stock, one could have operated it quite happily and, as the Tr-ang launch was synchronised with Peco and Wrenn's launch of "scale"  TT trackwork, they'd have wanted modellers to get building  as soon as possible.

 

*As illustrated on the front cover of the April 1957 RM, in which Minories first appeared , by the EM Tyling Branch with Ken Payne operating it while contentedly sucking on his pipe. 

 

 

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Ken Payne operating it while contentedly sucking on his pipe

Random thought - perhaps we would see less angst and more contentment in the world if more people were to suck on their pipes (lit or not)...

[Keith Addenbrooke]

52 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Random thought - perhaps we would see less angst and more contentment in the world if more people were to suck on their pipes (lit or not)...

I find the lagging we use on pipes these days a bit chewy.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

Random thought - perhaps we would see less angst and more contentment in the world if more people were to suck on their pipes (lit or not)...

 

My dad used to smoke a pipe. I don't know if he was doing something wrong but it used to make an awful noise as he sucked. It may have brought him contentment but it drove the rest of the family up the wall.

 

 

[Guest WM183]

Has anyone determined how long the throat would be with the EM Gauge Society's Peco large radius points? Deciding if this is a good route to pursue.

[t-b-g]

9 minutes ago, WM183 said:

Has anyone determined how long the throat would be with the EM Gauge Society's Peco large radius points? Deciding if this is a good route to pursue.

 

Whatever points are used, the Minories station throat is 4 points long.

 

The only thing I don't know is how long the Peco/EMGS point is!

 

There must be a dimension or somebody must have one to measure and times by 4.

 

But the fact that the plan can be all done using standard LH and RH points makes it a great candidate.

[Flying Pig]

23 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Whatever points are used, the Minories station throat is 4 points long.

 

The only thing I don't know is how long the Peco/EMGS point is!

 

There must be a dimension or somebody must have one to measure and times by 4.

 

But the fact that the plan can be all done using standard LH and RH points makes it a great candidate.

 

From the photo in the post below I make it about 300mm.

 

 

[t-b-g]

21 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

From the photo in the post below I make it about 300mm.

 

 

 

That seems rather long for a B6. I have an EMGS template with me for a B7 and that isn't as long as 300mm.

 

I would guess around 270mm but it is only a guess.

[Guest WM183]

2 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

That seems rather long for a B6. I have an EMGS template with me for a B7 and that isn't as long as 300mm.

 

I would guess around 270mm but it is only a guess.

The important bit is... a throat with large radius points would fit in 4' of space! 

That would give me 5' for platforms, 5' for fiddlin' yard, and 4 feet for the throat... 

[Flying Pig]

28 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

That seems rather long for a B6. I have an EMGS template with me for a B7 and that isn't as long as 300mm.

 

I would guess around 270mm but it is only a guess.

 

Measuring the photo as best I can on screen and scaling to give the correct gauge consistently gives just over 300mm.

[KeithMacdonald]

31 minutes ago, WM183 said:

The important bit is... a throat with large radius points would fit in 4' of space! 
That would give me 5' for platforms, 5' for fiddlin' yard, and 4 feet for the throat... 

 

I concur, about four feet for the throat with (e.g.) the Peco 25.9cm large radius points. But maybe the throat can be squeezed into three feet with the Peco 21.95cm large radius points?

 

Here's the latter on a one-foot grid, inspired by @Pacific231G. With as much length for station as one deems suitable.

 

 

 

[t-b-g]

52 minutes ago, WM183 said:

The important bit is... a throat with large radius points would fit in 4' of space! 

That would give me 5' for platforms, 5' for fiddlin' yard, and 4 feet for the throat... 

 

I can confirm 100% that it fits into 4ft.

 

My version has a 4ft board, the straight version of the throat and B7 points. The plan is slightly different but the 4 point length is the same.

 

 

So you will have no trouble getting a throat of 4 Peco/EM points in length on a 4ft board.

Edited December 8, 2020 by t-b-g
Clarify

[t-b-g]

25 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Measuring the photo as best I can on screen and scaling to give the correct gauge consistently gives just over 300mm.

 

You could well be right. There may be a few extra sleepers in the Peco point beyond the toe end which the EMGS template doesn't have.

 

II did a similar exercise by measuring from the screen to guestimate 270mm. I set dividers at the track gauge and the point was 15 times the length but measuring anything that way is fraught with potential distortion, which is why I say it is purely a guess.

 

Either way, 4 points fit on a 4ft board, which seems to be the important thing in this particular instance.  

[t-b-g]

I would just add one more thought and that is that stretching the plan to allow larger radius points really does give you the best of both worlds. You get all the operational possibilities of the design with none of the problems associated with small radius curves and points. You also get a vastly improved appearance, which becomes much more realistic than trying to squeeze every inch out of shortening the plan.

 

It only needs a relatively small extra length to do it and it improves the whole thing out of proportion to the extra space required.

 

A 4ft throat with a 5ft platform and fiddle yard sounds an ideal balance. Mine has an 8ft platform and fiddle yard and with hindsight, they are too long. The 5ft platform/fiddle yard version would be much better balanced visually.

Edited December 8, 2020 by t-b-g
Spelling

[Pacific231G]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I would just add one more thought and that is that stretching the plan to allow larger radius points really does give you the best of both worlds. You get all the operational possibilities of the design with none of the problems associated with small radius curves and points. You also get a vastly improved appearance, which becomes much more realistic than trying to squeeze every inch out of shortening the plan.

 

It only needs a relatively small extra length to do it and it improves the whole thing out of proportion to the extra space required.

 

A 4ft throat with a 5ft platform and fiddle yard sounds an ideal balance. Mine has an 8ft platform and fiddle yard and with hindsight, they are too long. The 5ft platform/fiddle yard version would be much better balanced visually.

Good Afternoon Tony

I agree about the benefits of larger radius points and using B7s there is presumably no need to use the Minories "trick" as coaching  stock should pass over conventional crossovers without any buffer locking?  I guess you might still want to avoid the straight in approach so that trains can snake in but Minories IS a slightly artificial arrangement. Though I don't usually buy it I did get the November Modeller and there was an interesting piece by Ian Futers on the appeal of curved throats.

It is frustrating that  with just 13ft (4m) available, using larger radius points throughout would reduce my train lengths by one vehicle. Five feet should certainly be plenty long enough for a four coach train and a decent tender loco with reasonable wriggle room but how long is a typical steam era main line coach in 4mm scale?  In H0 most of my Ep III French coaches are  around 10.5-11 inches each over couplers but my tender locos are between 10 and 12 inches so plaforms and fiddle yard at five foot just give me room for a four coach train with a six inch long baggage car. I'd be far happier with a five coach train ideally plus a four wheel baggage car but wouldn't want more than that so a  six foot platform would be quite sufficient. I'm thinking to build MMYL (Modified Minories) in the current space but have  extensions (18" or so avaialable at each end for outings) 

[Guest WM183]

Now the second question. By my math, 5 57 foot coaches, or 4 plus baggage, plus a black 5 would be... 350 or scale feet? I'd certainly not need or desire more. And that would fit within a 5 foot platform in 4mm?

[t-b-g]

22 minutes ago, WM183 said:

Now the second question. By my math, 5 57 foot coaches, or 4 plus baggage, plus a black 5 would be... 350 or scale feet? I'd certainly not need or desire more. And that would fit within a 5 foot platform in 4mm?

 

Just!

 

It pays to remember that a 57ft carriage isn't 57 ft long! That is the body length. The carriages on Buckingham are 50ft ones, so they have buffers/corridor connections beyond that length. The longest Buckingham train train of 5 with a 4-6-0 on the front, (within touching distance of a Black 5 length), is 4ft 4" long. Add another 7ft per carriage, 28mm x 5 equals 140mm, less than another 6 inches.

 

So a Black 5 with 5 x 57ft carriages will be, as near as makes no difference, 4ft 10ins long.

 

What it doesn't give you is much space to put a nice wide station concourse across the end but there are some dodges that can be used to mask that.  

[Guest WM183]

Thanks much!

That is a theoretical maximum. I wager most trains would be shorter, 3 or 4 coaches with tanks. Just knowing a Black 5 - the largest engine I am likely to ever run - with 5 LMS coaches would fit is nice. I will likely add a goods yard as well and a dedicated parcel dock, but the platforms and throat would remain as designed Minories.

Eee!

[thegreenhowards]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Just!

 

It pays to remember that a 57ft carriage isn't 57 ft long! That is the body length. The carriages on Buckingham are 50ft ones, so they have buffers/corridor connections beyond that length. The longest Buckingham train train of 5 with a 4-6-0 on the front, (within touching distance of a Black 5 length), is 4ft 4" long. Add another 7ft per carriage, 28mm x 5 equals 140mm, less than another 6 inches.

 

So a Black 5 with 5 x 57ft carriages will be, as near as makes no difference, 4ft 10ins long.

 

What it doesn't give you is much space to put a nice wide station concourse across the end but there are some dodges that can be used to mask that.  

What one needs to do is to get rid of all those annoying buffers which take up space. The ideal train is an 8 coach quad art. Only 2 pairs of buffers and 135cm in 4mm scale and what could be more appropriate for a Minories layout?

Edited December 8, 2020 by thegreenhowards
Cm not mm!

[t-b-g]

24 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

What one needs to do is to get rid of all those annoying buffers which take up space. The ideal train is an 8 coach quad art. Only 2 pairs of buffers and 135mm in 4mm scale and what could be more appropriate for a Minories layout?

 

Two problems.......

 

No 1, Far too modern for me! I have built a few close coupled rakes of 4 wheelers and they really do give you a lot of carriages in a short length.

 

No 2, I hate to question your calculations but 135mm doesn't sound quite right!

 

To be slightly more serious, that type of train would look fantastic on a Minories, with something like an N1 or N2 as motive power.

[thegreenhowards]

25 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Two problems.......

 

No 1, Far too modern for me! I have built a few close coupled rakes of 4 wheelers and they really do give you a lot of carriages in a short length.

 

No 2, I hate to question your calculations but 135mm doesn't sound quite right!

 

To be slightly more serious, that type of train would look fantastic on a Minories, with something like an N1 or N2 as motive power.

Cm. Doh! Now corrected.

[St Enodoc]

6 hours ago, t-b-g said:

So a Black 5 with 5 x 57ft carriages will be, as near as makes no difference, 4ft 10ins long.

Which brings us back nicely to another CJF design maxim, namely that one foot per coach is a good working guide to the length of passenger trains in 4mm scale (there are some caveats to that for shorter trains of course). I think this was in the Introduction to Plans for Larger Layouts but can't check just now.

[t-b-g]

7 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Which brings us back nicely to another CJF design maxim, namely that one foot per coach is a good working guide to the length of passenger trains in 4mm scale (there are some caveats to that for shorter trains of course). I think this was in the Introduction to Plans for Larger Layouts but can't check just now.

 

I used to use that as a rough guide when planning layouts and it worked quite well for more modern periods when carriage lengths settled down to around 60ft plus or minus a bit.

 

All was well until I went pregrouping when 4 and 6 wheelers and bogie carriages of around 50ft messed it up completely. 

[St Enodoc]

7 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I think this was in the Introduction to Plans for Larger Layouts but can't check just now.

It isn't. Never mind. No doubt it will pop up when I'm looking for something else entirely.

[Pacific231G]

16 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Which brings us back nicely to another CJF design maxim, namely that one foot per coach is a good working guide to the length of passenger trains in 4mm scale (there are some caveats to that for shorter trains of course). I think this was in the Introduction to Plans for Larger Layouts but can't check just now.

Hornby's mk 1 coaches are 265mm - presumably over buffers ? and that's actually very close to the  255-270mm I'm finding I need to allow for most of my fairly close coupled Ep III 1950s H0 SNCF coaches, say 10.5 inches on average and a Pacific is 280mm (11 inches) over couplers so I'd need eight coaches for the foot per coach maxim to allow room for a suitable locomotive. 

By comparison Hornby's Bulleid Pacific, an express loco that could convincingly haul quite short sections of trains lke the ACE  is 272mm so, allowing for couplers,  about the same as my 231K Pacific. Frustratingly Hornby don't give a length for their Castles and Kings but an A1 Pacific is 293mm so half an inch shorter than my longest steam loco  which is a class 241P "Mountain" 4-8-2. 

I found Edward Beal's Standard Trains and Platform Lengths Diagram in book 2 Layout and Survey of his Railway Modelling Series quite good though it was undoubtedly based on pre war stock.

For a six coach express passenger haued by an LMS 4-6-0 it was 6ft 6ins

For a six coach train of suburban bogie stock hauled by a 4-6-2 tank loco it was five foot six

For six six wheel coaches with a 2-6-2 tank i was three foot five inches

for a goods train with twelve wagons and a brake van (LMS type rather than a toad with an 0-6-0 tender loco, it was four foot.

I've got the diagram somewhere so will add it to this when I find it later on today.

With my four metre room I really am up against inches.

Just using two long points in the throat, which makes it much smoother,  takes me a couple of inches outside limits but, with three medium radius points and  a Y in the throat and some compromise on throwover I can make it work- just! for a four coach train with a short fourgon (brake van)

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by Pacific231G