Theory of General Minories

[Zomboid]

30cm per carriage (and loco, for a post-grouping layout) is a good starting point. It allows a bit of a margin for inaccurate driving, and it looks better if you don't fill every last mm of platform with train.

 

In super-constrained layouts it might be overdoing it, but at normal model train lengths you're not getting an extra carriage in if you use more accurate measurements.

[RJS1977]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

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

 

It was definitely in one of the three Peco/Freezer plan books. It was in the introduction to one of the sub-sections rather than the introduction to the whole book. I can remember what the next plan in the book was - but not which book!

 

However I've just looked in "60 plans for small layouts" and it's not in there...

[t-b-g]

I think most modellers will either know just how much space they have or know how long a train they want to be able to run.

 

For a design like Minories, of course many trains will need to be carriages plus 2 loco lengths. You will need the loco that brought the train in at the buffers stops unless the stock has been shunted to another platform.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Zomboid]

21 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

For a design like Minories, of course many trains will need to be carriages plus 2 loco lengths. You will need the loco that brought the train in at the buffers stops unless the stock has been shunted to another platform

Even if it has, the loco that does the shunting has to fit inside the signal, doesn't it? That might be an 0-6-0T rather than a 4-6-0, but it's still not negligible.

[t-b-g]

34 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Even if it has, the loco that does the shunting has to fit inside the signal, doesn't it? That might be an 0-6-0T rather than a 4-6-0, but it's still not negligible.

 

I have wondered about that question myself but have never been in a situation where I have had to find an answer, so I can't help you. My platforms have always been long enough for the train plus two locos so I haven't had to look into it.

 

I am sure there must be people reading who do know.

 

My instinctive answer would be that the real railway would have had a way of working such moves, perhaps under flags from the signalbox but I don't know for sure, that is a guess.

[Clive Mortimore]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I think most modellers will either know just how much space they have or know how long a train they want to be able to run.

 

For a design like Minories, of course many trains will need to be carriages plus 2 loco lengths. You will need the loco that brought the train in at the buffers stops unless the stock has been shunted to another platform.

 

Hi Tony

 

No it doesn't, it is how many 2 car DMUs you can fit.

 

On Sheffield exchange Mk1 it worked out a 5 car DMU, or 2 class 31s with 4 BR 57ft Mk1 non-gangways or a tender 2-6-0 either end and 3 through corridor coaches. The fiddle yard/ traverser was 4 ft long and could take a 5 car DMU (short underframe), a loco plus 4 suburban coaches and more than enough room for a 3 coach through portion and loco. I did try a 6 coach DMU but the end coach over hang the platform which in real life could have seen Mrs Jones alighting into the ballast. I had positioned the signal gantry so with a four coach suburban train the loco on the country end did over hang the platform but was not past the signal.

 

In reality some suburban services to small cramped termini were quite long trains, the LTSR sets were 13 48ft or 11 54ft coaches, replaced with 8 63ft long coach EMUs. An 8ft long platform Minories layout is a lot of platform for a visually narrow layout, so sometimes a shorter layout ( 5ft long platforms) can visually look better than a scale length one.

[t-b-g]

Just now, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Tony

 

No it doesn't, it is how many 2 car DMUs you can fit.

 

On Sheffield exchange Mk1 it worked out a 5 car DMU, or 2 class 31s with 4 BR 57ft Mk1 non-gangways or a tender 2-6-0 either end and 3 through corridor coaches. The fiddle yard/ traverser was 4 ft long and could take a 5 car DMU (short underframe), a loco plus 4 suburban coaches and more than enough room for a 3 coach through portion and loco. I did try a 6 coach DMU but the end coach over hang the platform which in real life could have seen Mrs Jones alighting into the ballast. I had positioned the signal gantry so with a four coach suburban train the loco on the country end did over hang the platform but was not past the signal.

 

In reality some suburban services to small cramped termini were quite long trains, the LTSR sets were 13 48ft or 11 54ft coaches, replaced with 8 63ft long coach EMUs. An 8ft long platform Minories layout is a lot of platform for a visually narrow layout, so sometimes a shorter layout ( 5ft long platforms) can visually look better than a scale length one.

 

You are just cheating. Them new fangled trains with no proper engine at the front will never catch on.

 

I agree with all you say, especially about not having the signals right at the end of the platforms. It is a trick I am using on the new one.

 

 

[Pacific231G]

10 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

It was definitely in one of the three Peco/Freezer plan books. It was in the introduction to one of the sub-sections rather than the introduction to the whole book. I can remember what the next plan in the book was - but not which book!

 

However I've just looked in "60 plans for small layouts" and it's not in there...

I've just looked at all three and can't find it in there but there were changes between editions. What was the next plan?

 

I've now found Edward Beal's summary of 4mm scale train lengths and he assumes six coach trains as the longest anyone would probably have room for.

 

He reckoned on ten and a half inches for main line  stock which still holds good for BR mk 1s (and 18m SNCF coaches in H0 scale)   and nine for suburban but using six wheel coaches would allow a six coach train to fit in a three foot six long platform. (I wonder whether another well known clergyman who pioneered EM had read Beal's books?)

Beal's planning assumptions assumed three foot radius pointwork with a "common turnout" at ten inches (with rather greater length after the crossing), a crossover or a scissors crossing at eighteen inches slightly longer than a pair of Peco medium radius points but also based on tracks separated by two inches centre to centre and a double or single slip at twelve inches. Most of his own track on the West Midland Railway was Mellor (GEM) and I think he used it ready made. Three foot seems to have been the "standard" radius for most serious (including hand made) 4m scale pointwork at that time (Peco's  individulay templates were for that radius and marked out for both 16.5 and 18mm gauges) and I believe roughly equivalent to an A5 turnout.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Flying Pig]

19 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

No it doesn't, it is how many 2 car DMUs you can fit.

 

Two different trains using the same terminal platform was very common when I were a lad travelling on the blue DMU railway.  In model terms, as Clive suggests, the 2 car DMU used in this way is an absolute boon for increasing the play value of a small station (and befuddling the plastic passengers).

 

I don't know how frequent it was in steam days except where extra crossovers were provided to divide the platform, but four of those locomotivy things on the ends of the trains would consume so much length it might not be feasible.

[t-b-g]

49 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Two different trains using the same terminal platform was very common when I were a lad travelling on the blue DMU railway.  In model terms, as Clive suggests, the 2 car DMU used in this way is an absolute boon for increasing the play value of a small station (and befuddling the plastic passengers).

 

I don't know how frequent it was in steam days except where extra crossovers were provided to divide the platform, but four of those locomotivy things on the ends of the trains would consume so much length it might not be feasible.

 

We do seem to go round in circles, which in itself is quite clever for a discussion about a terminus layout!

 

Some time back it was established, without any doubt, that some people like DMU/EMU operation and some don't.

 

The good old GCR was a bit lacking in DMUs but on Buckingham, we do, on several points in the timetable, have more trains in than platforms and more than one train occupies a platform. It used to happen on the real thing in steam days too. We do have a steam railmotor and a single carriage push pull, which do some of the "doubling up" but there are also loco hauled trains that arrive behind others. The maximum occupancy needed is two trains and two locos, not four.

 

If you have your timetable organised, you don't need four locos. Train arrives, pilot shunts stock to other platform. Train loco goes on the front. Second train arrives in the same platform that the first one arrived in. Pilot shunts stock to second platform, trapping the first train and loco. Second train loco goes to the front.

 

Or train arrives. Pilot pulls carriages clear on the departure line. Train loco goes to spur for coal/water. Pilot puts stock back in platform and retires to the departure road to await second arrival. Second train comes in, pilot draws stock along arrival line. Second train loco attaches to first train and departs. Pilot puts second train back in the platform. Loco from the spur attaches to second train.

 

At any time, either scenario (and I could add a few more) allows two trains and two locos as the maximum in a platform at one time.

 

To me, a big part of the operational appeal is in the releasing of trapped locos and in the getting the locos back on the front.

 

Running the steam railmotor and the push pull is never quite as interesting as the conventional loco hauled trains. They just arrive, then leave! 

 

[Pacific231G]

On 08/12/2020 at 12:04, 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 envy your fourteen feet. I have just four metres (thirteen feet plus a couple of odd inches and , for a shelf layout, the extra foot really does make a difference.

 

I've laid out a version of my modification of Minories  with a medium Y and a couple of lage radius Peco points, the rest all mediums, and trains do flow through it very nicely over all six routes. BUT it is almost exactly a metre long. 

The shortest train that works for me as the longest train using the terminus is this (or it's equivalent and local trains could be shorter) .

This has a 141P  Mikado at the head (but a 231K Pacific or a 141R Mikado are about the same length) and is just on 1.5m long (1.49-1.51) which would means the arriving loco's buffers would be touching the end wall of the room (no room for buffer stops) and, in the other direction, stopping in the fiddle yard with its front buffers over the window sill and the rear buffers barely clearing the final departure turnout. All a bit improbable.though. If you were happy with four coach trains without a baggage car (or five car MUs) it would be practicable in four metres.

 

By using all medium points, two of them Ys, the throat comes down to just 90cms (three foot give or take half an inch) so operating it is doable for me with a bit of wriggle room at each end. One also needs to remember that platform two (and three if no goods yard) is about 2-3 inches shorter than Platform one because of the clearance required at the heel end of the point. 

The cost of that is rather more throwover (buffers just avoid locking) not quite such a snaking movement through the throat and the corridor connections rather too displaced. Still, our predecessors seem to have been quite content with three foot radius points for almost all their trackwork and if it was easy everyone would be doing it.

 

Thinking of our predecessors I was quite amused by Edward Beal's suggestions of "average" room sizes for which he offered layout plans.  

Bedroom  16 ft x 11 ft; two small bedrooms each  15ft x 12ft connected by a landing;  dressing room 9ft x 6ft; Living room 20ft x 15ft; Box-room about 10ft x 8ft, Stable loft or attic up to 30ft x 18ft. (You'd have to dismiss some of the servants though!)  I think only his final suggestion, a garage averaging 15ft x 9ft would be found in a typical modern house but perhaps I move in the wrong circles.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Budgie]

25 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Thinking of our predecessors I was quite amused by Edward Beal's suggestions of "average" room sizes for which he offered layout plans.  

Bedroom  16 ft x 11 ft; two small bedrooms each  15ft x 12ft connected by a landing;  dressing room 9ft x 6ft; Living room 20ft x 15ft; Box-room about 10ft x 8ft, Stable loft or attic up to 30ft x 18ft. (You'd have to dismiss some of the servants though!)  I think only his final suggestion, a garage averaging 15ft x 9ft would be found in a typical modern house but perhaps I move in the wrong circles.

 

That's about right, I would say. Following on from that I would suggest that if you are a railway modeller don't buy a house that was built after the second world war.

[Joseph_Pestell]

8 minutes ago, Budgie said:

 

That's about right, I would say. Following on from that I would suggest that if you are a railway modeller don't buy a house that was built after the second world war.

 

I am currently buying a house which I believe was built in the 1920s but to a style that is more 1880s. Plenty of space for the model railways but at the price of having a home that is really much bigger than I need (and in need of a lot of renovation). The things that we do to pursue this hobby.

[KeithMacdonald]

43 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Thinking of our predecessors I was quite amused by Edward Beal's suggestions of "average" room sizes for which he offered layout plans.  

Bedroom  16 ft x 11 ft; two small bedrooms each  15ft x 12ft connected by a landing;  dressing room 9ft x 6ft; Living room 20ft x 15ft; Box-room about 10ft x 8ft, Stable loft or attic up to 30ft x 18ft. (You'd have to dismiss some of the servants though!)  I think only his final suggestion, a garage averaging 15ft x 9ft would be found in a typical modern house but perhaps I move in the wrong circles.

 

What are "average" room sizes now?

 

Or do we need a seperate topic: "Minories for minimal rooms"?

[Pacific231G]

3 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

What are "average" room sizes now?

 

Or do we need a seperate topic: "Minories for minimal rooms"?

I think they get smaller as they get more modern. Mine is a typical suburban semi thrown up in the late 1930s. The bedrooms are 13ft X10ft 6ins (less the chimney breasts) though the main (front) bedroom is complicated by having one of those bays that curves in at one end and the third "bedroom" over the stairs is 7ft 6ins by 6ft.

 

[Flying Pig]

4 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

What are "average" room sizes now?

 

Or do we need a seperate topic: "Minories for minimal rooms"?

 

There are a number of threads on building Minories in N

 

Edit - the one below is particularly nice (and operated by DMUs to boot).  Of course you can do it in 2mm Finescale too, as Alan Whitehouse and Mick Simpson did at Railex a while back, though you don't have to finish it in two days.

 

Edited December 10, 2020 by Flying Pig

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

There are a number of threads on building Minories in N

 

Edit - the one below is particularly nice (and operated by DMUs to boot).  Of course you can do it in 2mm Finescale too, as Alan Whitehouse and Mick Simpson did at Railex a while back, though you don't have to finish it in two days.

 

If my memory is any good, I saw that layout, Hallam Town, at Doncaster show a couple of years ago. Once Railex was over, the scenic work was completed later and it looked very nice indeed. 

[Flying Pig]

18 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

If my memory is any good, I saw that layout, Hallam Town, at Doncaster show a couple of years ago. Once Railex was over, the scenic work was completed later and it looked very nice indeed. 

 

You wouldn't really expect any less from messrs Mini MSW and Wansbeck Road.  It was written up in MRJ too.

[SteveyDee68]

2 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

I think they get smaller as they get more modern.

 

Slightly off topic, but in the 1990s I was involved in a Rowntree Foundation study into the design and sizing of new build homes through the late 80s and early 90s. What that clearly showed both in architectural plans and a lot of research into the way that such homes were used by their occupants was that houses for first time buyers were getting noticeably smaller whilst at the same time more expensive to buy. At the time, massive inventives were offered to encourage first time buyers (those without any "chains" to delay any purchase process) including 5% deposits paid, legal fees, free carpets and curtains, sometimes even "white goods" being 'free' (they weren't, of course, and simply demonstrates the massive markups enjoyed by the builders).

 

Furthermore, the actual designs were poorly suited to anyone other than newly weds or single people without children; poor design meant downstairs rooms/storage spaces were often accessed off others, reducing the usable space in a small room still further! And upstairs, third bedrooms would not even fit a full size bed.

 

And because the next first time buyers were being enticed into buying new homes rather than buying the smaller homes already built (after all, they could get a deposit, legal fees, free carpets etc etc if they bought new!) the expanding families in their "starter" homes found themselves trapped.

 

More recent building trends have seen larger rooms, usually gained by using the erstwhile loft space to provide a master bedroom/en suite. This doesn't necessarily mean gaining a spare room, just that the extra room gained is at the expense of storage space (in the loft!) aka modelling space!! Not to mention (IMHO) large five bedroom properties spread over three floors with only a paving stone's depth between the front door and the public footpath, and two paving stones' width to the next door property! (Here in the NW these were on sale - when I was looking - around £350k+ but I dread to think what they might be in London!)

 

In that respect, I think Edward Beal's "average room sizes" were correct when published but are out of step with modern buildings. Which also explains the rise in popularity of micro layouts, and why (with a neat segue back on topic) the compact nature of Minories still appeals for the many modellers starved for space.

 

HOURS OF FUN!

[Clive Mortimore]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

If my memory is any good, I saw that layout, Hallam Town, at Doncaster show a couple of years ago. Once Railex was over, the scenic work was completed later and it looked very nice indeed. 

2 mm version of Sheffield Exchange Mk1, there was a point in time when my layout was going to be called "Hallam Something" but having fictitious destinations on DMU fronts didn't seem right. Just having Sheffield at one end and a possible  location the train may go the other end seemed a bit more sensible. I came to that conclusion quite a few years ago still haven't ordered the transfers.

 

Hallam Town is a lovely layout, it demonstrates the simplicity of Cyril Freezer's "Minories" and at the same time is not boring to operate. 

[Pacific231G]

9 hours ago, SteveyDee68 said:

 

Slightly off topic, but in the 1990s I was involved in a Rowntree Foundation study into the design and sizing of new build homes through the late 80s and early 90s. What that clearly showed both in architectural plans and a lot of research into the way that such homes were used by their occupants was that houses for first time buyers were getting noticeably smaller whilst at the same time more expensive to buy. At the time, massive inventives were offered to encourage first time buyers (those without any "chains" to delay any purchase process) including 5% deposits paid, legal fees, free carpets and curtains, sometimes even "white goods" being 'free' (they weren't, of course, and simply demonstrates the massive markups enjoyed by the builders).

 

Furthermore, the actual designs were poorly suited to anyone other than newly weds or single people without children; poor design meant downstairs rooms/storage spaces were often accessed off others, reducing the usable space in a small room still further! And upstairs, third bedrooms would not even fit a full size bed.

 

And because the next first time buyers were being enticed into buying new homes rather than buying the smaller homes already built (after all, they could get a deposit, legal fees, free carpets etc etc if they bought new!) the expanding families in their "starter" homes found themselves trapped.

 

More recent building trends have seen larger rooms, usually gained by using the erstwhile loft space to provide a master bedroom/en suite. This doesn't necessarily mean gaining a spare room, just that the extra room gained is at the expense of storage space (in the loft!) aka modelling space!! Not to mention (IMHO) large five bedroom properties spread over three floors with only a paving stone's depth between the front door and the public footpath, and two paving stones' width to the next door property! (Here in the NW these were on sale - when I was looking - around £350k+ but I dread to think what they might be in London!)

 

In that respect, I think Edward Beal's "average room sizes" were correct when published but are out of step with modern buildings. Which also explains the rise in popularity of micro layouts, and why (with a neat segue back on topic) the compact nature of Minories still appeals for the many modellers starved for space.

 

HOURS OF FUN!

Still slightly OT but I remember looking at a new estate when looking for my first house in the 1980s. I didn't buy there, Iargely because slightly older houses from about 1970 on a mature estate were rather larger, but was struck by the massive difference in price (something like 15-20% AFAIR) between the new houses being "released" by the builders and identical houses built earlier on the same estate and now up for sale. ISTR advertising by one of the builders tryting to persuade young couples that they coudn't possibly want a "second hand" home. I think the relevance to this topic is the need for flexibility and perhaps portability to accomodate rooms in houses we may move to. One of Minories' virtues it seems to me is that it is quite modular and CJF's original suggestion of having an optional extra board at the end still holds good. 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

2 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Still slightly OT but I remember looking at a new estate when looking for my first house in the 1980s. I didn't buy there, Iargely because slightly older houses from about 1970 on a mature estate were rather larger, but was struck by the massive difference in price (something like 15-20% AFAIR) between the new houses being "released" by the builders and identical houses built earlier on the same estate and now up for sale. ISTR advertising by one of the builders tryting to persuade young couples that they coudn't possibly want a "second hand" home. I think the relevance to this topic is the need for flexibility and perhaps portability to accomodate rooms in houses we may move to. One of Minories' virtues it seems to me is that it is quite modular and CJF's original suggestion of having an optional extra board at the end still holds good. 

Alternatively, some of CJF’s straight urban terminus designs are accompanied by the suggestion of inserting an additional board mid-way along the platforms instead,  giving a longer platform while retaining the concourse end as already built.
 

Of course, the Fiddle Yard also needs a similar extension - and I note @t-b-g‘s observation as to maintaining appropriate proportions of doing this, but it may be easier to build in some respects - as the ‘end board’ remains the end board.

 

Another option could be to add a scenic board, either to one side or at the end - which brings us to Buckingham again and @t-b-g.

[Harlequin]

Minories, as originally conceived, is portable and so you set it up wherever there is room for it...

(And then fold it up and take it away when the room needs to be used for something else.)

 

Edited December 11, 2020 by Harlequin

[t-b-g]

36 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Minories, as originally conceived, is portable and so you set it up wherever there is room for it...

(And then fold it up and take it away when the room needs to be used for something else.)

 

 

I think that is an important point and an intrinsic part of the design. 

 

If the second hinged board and the fiddle yard can fold over on top of the first board, you can get something that actually needs no more than around 3ft 6ins of permanent storage space, as long as there is somewhere it will go for a running session. It is ideal for a "Set up, run it for a while then take it down" type arrangement, or indeed for an exhibition layout.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 10/12/2020 at 16:30, Pacific231G said:

I envy your fourteen feet. I have just four metres (thirteen feet plus a couple of odd inches and , for a shelf layout, the extra foot really does make a difference.

 

I've laid out a version of my modification of Minories  with a medium Y and a couple of lage radius Peco points, the rest all mediums, and trains do flow through it very nicely over all six routes. BUT it is almost exactly a metre long. 

The shortest train that works for me as the longest train using the terminus is this (or it's equivalent and local trains could be shorter) .

This has a 141P  Mikado at the head (but a 231K Pacific or a 141R Mikado are about the same length) and is just on 1.5m long (1.49-1.51) which would means the arriving loco's buffers would be touching the end wall of the room (no room for buffer stops) and, in the other direction, stopping in the fiddle yard with its front buffers over the window sill and the rear buffers barely clearing the final departure turnout. All a bit improbable.though. If you were happy with four coach trains without a baggage car (or five car MUs) it would be practicable in four metres.

 

By using all medium points, two of them Ys, the throat comes down to just 90cms (three foot give or take half an inch) so operating it is doable for me with a bit of wriggle room at each end. One also needs to remember that platform two (and three if no goods yard) is about 2-3 inches shorter than Platform one because of the clearance required at the heel end of the point. 

The cost of that is rather more throwover (buffers just avoid locking) not quite such a snaking movement through the throat and the corridor connections rather too displaced. Still, our predecessors seem to have been quite content with three foot radius points for almost all their trackwork and if it was easy everyone would be doing it.

 

Thinking of our predecessors I was quite amused by Edward Beal's suggestions of "average" room sizes for which he offered layout plans.  

Bedroom  16 ft x 11 ft; two small bedrooms each  15ft x 12ft connected by a landing;  dressing room 9ft x 6ft; Living room 20ft x 15ft; Box-room about 10ft x 8ft, Stable loft or attic up to 30ft x 18ft. (You'd have to dismiss some of the servants though!)  I think only his final suggestion, a garage averaging 15ft x 9ft would be found in a typical modern house but perhaps I move in the wrong circles.

At 9’ wide, a garage might just have room for a Minories Terminus across the end wall (7’) plus a tight 90 degree turn to a shelf fiddle yard along one side (2’).  In the 1989 version of his Plans for Small Layouts, CJF assumed garages were 8’ wide as standard, and explained it as the reason for a good number of his plans keeping to 8’.  In his Introduction, which also talks about houses getting smaller, he saw the increase in garages as the positive development in house building for modellers.

 

He included 3 versions of Minories in that later book: the classic, shown as 7’ x 1’ (but still presented as an isometric drawing), an extended 8’ x 1’3” (with a straight loco siding, and two parcels sidings off a kickback headshunt), and an 8’ x 5’ version with a station throat like this (extract):

 

 

CJF was still happy to call this Minories, with the throat on the curve (as explored at various times in this thread).  The loco spur - not shown - was off a trailing point on the arrivals line.

 

Noting the recent direction of travel in this thread, CJF suggested the shorter platforms (we call them 2 and 3) were for three coach non-corridor stock and tank locomotives, with the longer platform suggested for four coach corridor trains and a 4-6-0 locomotive (not a Pacific, perhaps a GWR hint?).

This development deviates from the original in several ways - including the move away from portability.

 

As for developments in house building in general: this might be for another conversation, but I presume a discussion on the classic ‘Inglenook’ design might debate the need for a chimney...

Edited October 5, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke