Theory of General Minories

[Compound2632]

The single crossover layout per @t-b-g's new layout is, I think, perfectly adequate for a less intensively-used double line terminus (i.e. the Z-Minories shown the other day), with one platform being for arrivals and the other for departures (a usual 19th-century distinction anyway). In quite periods, the train can  simply leave from the same platform; alternatively the stock can be shunted across to the arrivals side or taken away to the carriage sidings (which could be between the platforms, like Bath Queen Square). More movements for leisurely operation.

[t-b-g]

54 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

In another thread (Classic Layouts?)  I brought up Mac Pyrkes' 'Victoria Square' as a lost gem.  It seems this may have been a Minories...  or it may have been an early Diversity Box Ticker

 

 

 

 

Picture by Chris Nevard.

 

If anyone has the MRM for May 1984, please send me a copy of the article and put me out of my misery.  I've been looking for more on this layout for years now!

 

 

I have heard of the layout but that is the first time I have seen a photo. I always liked the "Berrow Branch" and that does look very enticing!

 

At first glance, it looks to be a single crossover variety. Was there a loco release crossover at the terminus end? Looking at the signals, was it even double track? I can't tell if the signals are small arms for shunting or big arms for departing a train. If it is double track, you would have to shunt everything to lines the 4-4-0 or the shunter are on to depart, or maybe there is a crossover out of the photo frame.

 

I don't have that magazine but seeing the contents, there is just a chance that I might even be in it. That year was roughly when I became a fairly regular exhibitor at EXPO EM but I can't remember what layouts I had there in which years and I was sometimes an operator on a layout taken by somebody else.

[RJS1977]

8 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Layout length at three times the train length is probably about optimum for Minories, given that the focus is on the station throat; extra length on the platforms and fiddle yard adds little to the layout. 

 

But what if not all trains are the same length? ;-)

 

There's a lot of additional enjoyment to be had on a terminus layout by attaching and detaching parcels vans etc.

[Siberian Snooper]

More repeats than the beeb!

 

 

[Pacific231G]

7 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

But what if not all trains are the same length? ;-)

 

There's a lot of additional enjoyment to be had on a terminus layout by attaching and detaching parcels vans etc.

About fifteen years ago I did come up with a passenger train version of Inglenook Sidings where making and breaking trains was all you did. It was a classic 5-3-3 Inglenook and was a bitsa layout that was supposed to represent one end of a station (not necessarily a terminus) It was designed to just come within Carl Arendt's four square foot rule for a Microlayout. I never actually thought it was a Microlayout and I designed it for Carl as a private joke. However, he decided it did count and asked if he could publish it on his Microlayout site.

Though Carl sadly died ten years ago, others have maintained his site and the plan is still there.  

www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-44-december-2005/

I mocked it up on a couple of boards and it was quite good fun to play with for a while but I never had any intention of actually building it. I designed it before I'd realised the true nature of the old Fort William Station- a single track Minories if ever there was one.

Edited April 14, 2021 by Pacific231G

[Pacific231G]

8 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

 

It is often the ultimate modelling dilemma. I would like to run a train this long and this is the space I have to do it in! Sadly, something has to give.

 

Peter Denny's solution (and mine) was to turn back the years to the days when a full length express train of 5 carriages plus a loco was quite a realistic train length. Longer, more modern carriages do just make it that bit more difficult.

 

My simplified version with the single crossover and the total throat length being two points, would, in 4 metres (I call it 13ft in old money) give you a train length of 5ft. 6ins. if you allow 1ft per point. 5ft 6ins platforms and fiddle yard and a 2ft throat.

 

I attach a photo in case you didn't see it previously and are interested.

 

 

 

Hi Tony

Yes I did see it and liked it a lot. It is a good plan and a possible answer with the complex looking throat disguising the fact that each route passes over just two sets of points.  I did though mock up various schemes using equally short throats including E.A. Beet's very neat plan and a lengthened three platform version of Charford  that could be operated as the terminus of a single track line in "short" mode or extended with an additional trailing crossover to be a true double track terrminus in "long" mode. I came to the conclusion that a train leaving a station, going over a single crossover then arriving in the fiddle yard was a bit too much like a shuttlecock. I even tried out a version of Minories with a shortened throat using a single slip instead of the back-to-back points but again found the throat to be aesthetically too short. However, when the train rattled over the four points long Minories (or equivalent) throat, it just seemed that much more credible.  

For me the conclusion was to accept four coach trains (possibly squeezing in a four wheel Fourgon) in back-bedroom mode but with 0.5 metre extensionsto the terminus and the fiddle yard for outings (which could be no further than the living room if I have fellow enthusiasts round) I  also rather liked the cheat that Gavin Thrum used with Great Moor Street by putting the first point of the fiddle yard at the end of the scenic section so avoiding any need for sector plates, traversers or cassettes.  That layout is only 10ft 6ins in total but though it's early post grouping it too seems to rely on pre-grouping carriages.

[t-b-g]

4 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Hi Tony

Yes I did see it and liked it a lot. It is a good plan and a possible answer with the complex looking throat disguising the fact that each route passes over just two sets of points.  I did though mock up various schemes using equally short throats including E.A. Beet's very neat plan and a lengthened three platform version of Charford  that could be operated as the terminus of a single track line in "short" mode or extended with an additional trailing crossover to be a true double track terrminus in "long" mode. I came to the conclusion that a train leaving a station, going over a single crossover then arriving in the fiddle yard was a bit too much like a shuttlecock. I even tried out a version of Minories with a shortened throat using a single slip instead of the back-to-back points but again found the throat to be aesthetically too short. However, when the train rattled over the four points long Minories (or equivalent) throat, it just seemed that much more credible.  

For me the conclusion was to accept four coach trains (possibly squeezing in a four wheel Fourgon) in back-bedroom mode but with 0.5 metre extensionsto the terminus and the fiddle yard for outings (which could be no further than the living room if I have fellow enthusiasts round) I  also rather liked the cheat that Gavin Thrum used with Great Moor Street by putting the first point of the fiddle yard at the end of the scenic section so avoiding any need for sector plates, traversers or cassettes.  That layout is only 10ft 6ins in total but though it's early post grouping it too seems to rely on pre-grouping carriages.

 

That is fair enough and I understand just what you mean. After having said that my 8ft platform and fiddle yard and 4ft throat looked unbalanced, I am then suggesting pretty similar proportions to you!

 

The one illustrated is really based on 4ft platform, 4ft throat and 4ft fiddle yard and that ratio does seem to get mentioned a few times as looking OK. Another advantage of the 4ft throat with only two points is that the home signal is not right at the fiddle yard exit and a train or light engine can be brought up to it and held on scene. It also allows a loco or a loco and a van to swap to another track without going into the fiddle yard, which is something I though would appeal visually. I will probably have an advanced starter signal with a "shunt ahead" arm on the departure road, so if it is just a loco and a van, the signal isn't needed but to shunt a whole rake, the shunt ahead arm comes into play.

 

I am looking forward to building the signals. I haven't done any for myself for quite a while and these will be LD&ECR pattern somersaults.

 

The idea of extensions for exhibitions was in one of the Freezer articles and has some merit as long as it doesn't spoil the proportions of platform, throat and fiddle yard too much.

[Clive Mortimore]

On Sheffield Exchange Mk1 the traverser was 4 ft long. It held 4 x 57ft coaches and a 2-6-0 or 5 short underframe DMU cars. At the other end the platforms held the same length train with another 2-6-0. They could have held a six car DMU but that wouldn't fit the traverser. The layout was 16 ft long, a foot was given to the fiddle yard end. I could just about get a full train out the tunnel with the loco standing at the inner home signals (Nos. 26, 27, &28). Likewise there was just enough room for a train to clear the last set of point blades and go past the starter (No 7)  so shunt moves could take place.

The green line and signals represent ones that had been

The green line is a lifted track and its associated signals.

 

The traverser

 

A K3 on a Leeds train halted as a Crab on the Sheffield portion of a Bradford to Cardiff train departs.

 

A Doncaster local set and a York express await departure.

 

Pretending there was a lifted siding would have given viewers a better look at the point rodding.

 

One day I will build a second layout based on this one but planning the scenery beforehand. It could be on a viaduct.

[RJS1977]

14 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

The longest train on Buckingham, 5 corridor coaches plus a 4-6-0 tender loco, is 4ft 3ins long. A "Minories" plus fiddle yard in 4 metres works with that as a train length. Perhaps going pre-grouping comes under "altering time" but it is a good way of getting more carriages on your trains.

 

I think 4'3" is about the maximum length for a reversible fiddle yard, be it a "pick it up, turn it round and put it down again" type that CJF attributed to Peter Denny, or the rotating fiddle yard on Buckingham.

 

My Aberystwyth layout has a 4'3" pick it up fiddle yard and that's about as long as I can turn comfortably - i.e. that I can hold the two pick-up handles and turn it in front of me. With the 'bow doors' down, it means I can just get a Manor and four Hornby coaches, or a 2251 and 4 Bachmann coaches in the fiddle yard. The terminus was designed so that the platforms could be extended to take full 8-coach trains but that has never been done as the fiddle yard would be impractical. 

[RJS1977]

For clarity, what I should have said is that with the 'bow doors' (end stops) down, the fiddle yard can hold a Manor & 4 Hornby coaches, or a 2251 and 4 Bachmanns. I can't get anything into the fiddle yard with the end stops down as they block the track....

[johnhutnick]

I would also appreciate a scanned copy if anyone has this article.  I am the US and old magazine content is difficult.  johnhutnick@gmail.com

[Keith Addenbrooke]

10 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

The traverser.

 

How did the traverser work for access to the outer tracks (the five to the left in this view).  It looks like a rather solid wall to the right?  
As an obvious general layout design point, traversers and train turntables both need room to slide / swing, perhaps making them less ideal for some Minories schemes where the station layout naturally suits a shelf.

For a traverser you could ‘flip’ a Minories so the exit tracks are at the front of the board, and there are train turntable designs that pull away from the wall for turning: I saw pictures of one recently that was made like a tea trolley for ease of turning.

 

[Flying Pig]

12 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

A K3 on a Leeds train halted as a Crab on the Sheffield portion of a Bradford to Cardiff train departs.

 

Hi Clive.  One thing I particularly like about this layout and its successor is how you located them within the actual rail network.  I know that's not totally original (Buckingham, Borchester, Bradfield and probably numerous other layouts beginning with B) but it does enhance the play value considerably when there's a variety of destinations for the trains.  Particularly when you can put two trains in a single platform, which is of course easy with DMUs.

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

How did the traverser work for access to the outer tracks (the five to the left in this view).  It looks like a rather solid wall to the right?  
As an obvious general layout design point, traversers and train turntables both need room to slide / swing, perhaps making them less ideal for some Minories schemes where the station layout naturally suits a shelf.

For a traverser you could ‘flip’ a Minories so the exit tracks are at the front of the board, and there are train turntable designs that pull away from the wall for turning: I saw pictures of one recently that was made like a tea trolley for ease of turning.

 

Hi Keith

 

The layout wasn't against the wall, just over to one side of the garage.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Keith

 

The layout wasn't against the wall, just over to one side of the garage.

Thanks Clive - so was there a gap that allowed the traverser to slide that doesn’t appear to be so obvious (to my eyes at least)  in the angle of the photo?  
Your Sheffield Exchange layouts are certainly very good examples to cite in defence of DMU operation - something this photo shows well.

[Nearholmer]

15 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

in defence of DMU operation

 

And EMUs; we must mention EMUs! (which I regard as superior in every way to diesels, with the exception of DEMUs)

 

Many of the earlier designs of EMU were, IMHO, more characterful than a lot of steam-hauled trains, either stylishly American, or (SR rebuilds), slightly scrapyard challenge, with all sorts of conduits and cables all over them. The obvious ones are SR, but don't forget Tyneside, Manchester, Merseyside, north London, and the Met and District, most of which had attractive trains, and some at least had very model-inspiring termini.

 

One form of operation that could add entertainment was the SR practice of using 2-car trailer sets between 3-car EMUs at peak times, then splitting down to yield a single 3-car off-peak. The splitting tended to happen at the outer ends of the routes, but ..........

 

And, both Merseyside and Tyneside had MLVs long before BR(S) did. And, the Met was good as mixing-up cars of different styles in trains.

 

EMUs save on investment in blue-exhaust-smoke generating machines, and rasping-noise simulators for your layout too.

 

I could go on.

 

I already did?

 

Oh, sorry!

 

PS: a re-imagined East London Line could yield EMUs, diesel locos, and steam, all together in some damp and dripping, brick-lined trench. 

 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

don't forget Tyneside, Manchester, Merseyside, north London, and the Met and District, most of which had attractive trains, and some at least had very model-inspiring termini.

 

Very attractive trains until the dull hand of Eastleigh got to them in later years .  I've often thought that the bays at the east end of Newcastle Central would make the basis of a good bitsa model.  There seems to be a nice mix of electric and steam/diesel, with the frequent presence of a shunter shuffling vans.

 

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

EMUs save on investment in blue-exhaust-smoke generating machines, and rasping-noise simulators for your layout too.

 

Zero-cost option for those of us who are lactose intolerant.

[D9020 Nimbus]

Yes, the "old" platforms 1–3 at Newcastle were rather separate from the rest of the station — they even had their own booking office. The only snag I could see is that there is no easy way to vanish the tracks at the open end. You certainly wouldn't want to model the east end crossing!

[Flying Pig]

2 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Yes, the "old" platforms 1–3 at Newcastle were rather separate from the rest of the station — they even had their own booking office. The only snag I could see is that there is no easy way to vanish the tracks at the open end. You certainly wouldn't want to model the east end crossing!

 

The edge of the board would need to cut across the foreground tracks which would be largely scenic, though you might be able to include enough operational track to run some light engine movements and carriage or parcels shunts for extra interest.  

[New Haven Neil]

On 13/04/2021 at 11:37, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

In another thread (Classic Layouts?)  I brought up Mac Pyrkes' 'Victoria Square' as a lost gem.  It seems this may have been a Minories...  or it may have been an early Diversity Box Ticker

 

 

 

 

Picture by Chris Nevard.

 

If anyone has the MRM for May 1984, please send me a copy of the article and put me out of my misery.  I've been looking for more on this layout for years now!

 

 

 

I have this...'somewhere'....I will have a dig for it tomorrow.

 

I saw it at a show, and Mac was a real gentleman, had a nice chat about it and Berrow with him.  A real old fashioned gentleman, tie and sports jacket!

Edited April 14, 2021 by New Haven Neil
speeling

[New Haven Neil]

On 14/04/2021 at 19:50, New Haven Neil said:

 

 

I have this...'somewhere'....I will have a dig for it tomorrow.

 

I saw it at a show, and Mac was a real gentleman, had a nice chat about it and Berrow with him.  A real old fashioned gentleman, tie and sports jacket!

 

Damn.  I can't find it, I can only presume it failed the cull on our last house move, we downsized to about a third of the square footage so had to be really hard on such things.  Sorry, I'm disappointed myself as I wanted to read it again.  :-(

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

11 hours ago, New Haven Neil said:

 

Damn.  I can't find it, I can only presume it failed the cull on our last house move, we downsized to about a third of the square footage so had to be really hard on such things.  Sorry, I'm disappointed myself as I wanted to read it again.  :-(

 

It's a layout that refuses to be found...  just those two Chris Nevard shots, that seems to be all that's out there.  Even back issues of the only magazine article I know of have disappeared.  

 

 

[Lacathedrale]

So I think we established earlier on in this thread that staging for four trains (plus one on the layout) would be more than enough for most steam-era operation.

 

I built a 'half-Minories' some time ago and it had the unenviable wrinkle that station pilot shunt moves would take the locos and stock into the traverser. What may have made that more egregious was that realigning the traverser meant vaulting a joist in the middle of the attic from where the layout was stored. I don't think I got very far at all with that one after I realised what a pain it was!

 

In any event, I'm looking at a Minories (or Minories-alike) in my office - the space is ostensibly long enough for a 'short' Minories, but it does have another niggle - in this case that the 'fiddle yard' can be no wider than 5". In 2mm/N or TT this isn't an issue at all, but as an experiment I've been looking at 4mm also. Discounting various ingenious solutions like re-hanging the door, etc. it feels like the only non-invasive solution to this is to use cassettes or a vertical traverser. Neither of these seem like that would be a trouble in an exhibition environment, but solo I imagine breech-loading trains would get very tiresome:

 

(example layout in the space available - middle roads are bidirectional, southern is arrival only, northern is departure only)

 

To ensure that all operations on a layout can be achieved without resorting to leveraging the fiddle yard for 'railway' moves, we need a layout length 4TU + station throat + fiddle throat) of 1TU for platforms, the throat 1TU for a headshunt and then 1TU for a cassette (or 1TU + a fiddle throat). In my case, I make that about 12'  - or a foot longer than I have to play with!

 

In 2mm/N gauge this works nicely - using Holborn Viaduct as a model, the throat was only 180' away from the first turnout of Ludgate Hill - so Ludgate Hill's overall trainshed and parapets could be used as a legitimate view block for the FY, with the turnouts for the FY roads visible as the tangle of tracks by the exit of LH:

 

 

The above is essentially Minories-as-wrote, with the exception of a three-way instead of a normal turnout on the platform roads to save space, and a double slip rather than heel-to-toe turnouts in the throat for the same reason.

 

What may be intresting is how closely HV itself ends up resembling Minories:

 

 

 

[simon b]

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

So I think we established earlier on in this thread that staging for four trains (plus one on the layout) would be more than enough for most steam-era operation.

 

I built a 'half-Minories' some time ago and it had the unenviable wrinkle that station pilot shunt moves would take the locos and stock into the traverser. What may have made that more egregious was that realigning the traverser meant vaulting a joist in the middle of the attic from where the layout was stored. I don't think I got very far at all with that one after I realised what a pain it was!

 

In any event, I'm looking at a Minories (or Minories-alike) in my office - the space is ostensibly long enough for a 'short' Minories, but it does have another niggle - in this case that the 'fiddle yard' can be no wider than 5". In 2mm/N or TT this isn't an issue at all, but as an experiment I've been looking at 4mm also. Discounting various ingenious solutions like re-hanging the door, etc. it feels like the only non-invasive solution to this is to use cassettes or a vertical traverser. Neither of these seem like that would be a trouble in an exhibition environment, but solo I imagine breech-loading trains would get very tiresome:

 

(example layout in the space available - middle roads are bidirectional, southern is arrival only, northern is departure only)

 

To ensure that all operations on a layout can be achieved without resorting to leveraging the fiddle yard for 'railway' moves, we need a layout length 4TU + station throat + fiddle throat) of 1TU for platforms, the throat 1TU for a headshunt and then 1TU for a cassette (or 1TU + a fiddle throat). In my case, I make that about 12'  - or a foot longer than I have to play with!

 

In 2mm/N gauge this works nicely - using Holborn Viaduct as a model, the throat was only 180' away from the first turnout of Ludgate Hill - so Ludgate Hill's overall trainshed and parapets could be used as a legitimate view block for the FY, with the turnouts for the FY roads visible as the tangle of tracks by the exit of LH:

 

 

The above is essentially Minories-as-wrote, with the exception of a three-way instead of a normal turnout on the platform roads to save space, and a double slip rather than heel-to-toe turnouts in the throat for the same reason.

 

What may be intresting is how closely HV itself ends up resembling Minories:

 

 

 

I experimented with a similar idea based on Holborn viaduct earlier on in this thread, the only thing I would mention is the tight radius of the single slip if working with Peco 00 track. It is a great basis for a minories style layout especially if you can represent Ludgate hill as a scenic break.

 

A vertical "train stacker" would be a great space saver, Iirc there is one made by a US company.

Edited May 2, 2021 by simon b

[RJS1977]

19 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

So I think we established earlier on in this thread that staging for four trains (plus one on the layout) would be more than enough for most steam-era operation.

 

I built a 'half-Minories' some time ago and it had the unenviable wrinkle that station pilot shunt moves would take the locos and stock into the traverser. What may have made that more egregious was that realigning the traverser meant vaulting a joist in the middle of the attic from where the layout was stored. I don't think I got very far at all with that one after I realised what a pain it was!

 

In any event, I'm looking at a Minories (or Minories-alike) in my office - the space is ostensibly long enough for a 'short' Minories, but it does have another niggle - in this case that the 'fiddle yard' can be no wider than 5". In 2mm/N or TT this isn't an issue at all, but as an experiment I've been looking at 4mm also. Discounting various ingenious solutions like re-hanging the door, etc. it feels like the only non-invasive solution to this is to use cassettes or a vertical traverser. Neither of these seem like that would be a trouble in an exhibition environment, but solo I imagine breech-loading trains would get very tiresome:

 

(example layout in the space available - middle roads are bidirectional, southern is arrival only, northern is departure only)

 

 

In that example, I'd suggest including a second crossover allowing access to the top platform, and making the two lines into the fiddle yard as two parallel single track lines (Cromer and Carmarthen being examples which spring to mind). That way, you can have two arrivals and two departures before you need to change the fiddle yard.