Theory of General Minories

[Flying Pig]

On 02/05/2021 at 18:32, Lacathedrale said:

(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...

 

First, I'm not convinced that is much of an issue.  If the train has recently arrived, there should be a spare road in the fiddle yard which just needs realigning to the departure side, assuming cassettes or a traverser are used.  The movement itself is just in and out of the tunnel and can probably be driven from the station end with minimal disruption to suspended disbelief.

 

Second, on this particular layout, many moves can be made completely on scene.  Trains in the short middle platform can arrive and depart without shunting; a shunt limit at the tunnel mouth on the arrival line would give enough room for shunting vans in the dock; and there is enough space before the tunnel for loco moves on both main line.  Only shunts from the main arrival to the departure platforms need occupy the fiddle yard.

 

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

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!

 

 

With thanks to Stefan (Sarcodelic of this parish) and Andy's approval, we can now all enjoy Mac Pyrkes take on the classic minories.  Or 'Minorities'...

 

Of particular note I think is the scenic treatment, which although it's very much of its time is altogether compelling.   I really rather like elevated railways.

 

 

 

 

 

Not quite a classic Minories, but in the same vein and thus worthy of consideration.  

 

Edited May 11, 2021 by Dr Gerbil-Fritters

[RobinofLoxley]

Having been lurking on this topic for a while, I have decided to throw caution to the winds and chuck in my own two penn'orth.

 

Just a general thing, I cant quite bring myself to see this concept as quite the work of genius as some. Given the many precedents, for example the awesome Bastille, its just asking the question what is the most economical way to render this (any number of existing termini) in a model setting. Then there arent so many possibilities, which brings me to my own question.

 

Pardon me if Im mistaken but i couldnt find any discussed variant in the thread with two Y points back to back. One was used but not two as far as I can see.

 

See iteration (1) using the natural angle created by the use of back to back Y points to have the up and down lines parallel to the platform tracks but offset, which leaves the wiggle in place, but I think that all routes in and out are traversible. The downside is that there is a slight variation in gauge that might be irking to some. It would depend how the track could be viewed on a layout I think.

 

Below (2) is a tiny variation using the longer point in the assumed yard access, which because of its position doesnt impact the 3foot/92 cm footprint criterion.  Its only necessary to use shorter flexi fill-ins compared to (1).

 

For iteration (3) I used a third Y point nearest the platforms which had the effect of tilting the up and down lines and is probably my preferred variation.

 

And finally version (4) used a fourth Y point which brought the up and down lines more or less into 'line' with the platform tracks. I could get them properly lined up with a bit of fiddling I think.

 

There are quite a few further variants possible but i dont think I need to spell them out.

 

 

[Pacific231G]

4 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

Having been lurking on this topic for a while, I have decided to throw caution to the winds and chuck in my own two penn'orth.

 

Just a general thing, I cant quite bring myself to see this concept as quite the work of genius as some. Given the many precedents, for example the awesome Bastille, its just asking the question what is the most economical way to render this (any number of existing termini) in a model setting. Then there arent so many possibilities, which brings me to my own question.

 

Pardon me if Im mistaken but i couldnt find any discussed variant in the thread with two Y points back to back. One was used but not two as far as I can see.

 

See iteration (1) using the natural angle created by the use of back to back Y points to have the up and down lines parallel to the platform tracks but offset, which leaves the wiggle in place, but I think that all routes in and out are traversible. The downside is that there is a slight variation in gauge that might be irking to some. It would depend how the track could be viewed on a layout I think.

 

Below (2) is a tiny variation using the longer point in the assumed yard access, which because of its position doesnt impact the 3foot/92 cm footprint criterion.  Its only necessary to use shorter flexi fill-ins compared to (1).

 

For iteration (3) I used a third Y point nearest the platforms which had the effect of tilting the up and down lines and is probably my preferred variation.

 

And finally version (4) used a fourth Y point which brought the up and down lines more or less into 'line' with the platform tracks. I could get them properly lined up with a bit of fiddling I think.

 

There are quite a few further variants possible but i dont think I need to spell them out.

 

 

Hi Robin

I've done a lot of experimenting with variations on Minories including just about every permutation  of long,medium and Y points. I tried the two Ys back to back but found that the double wiggle just looked weird and didn't get over the buffer locking problem (I'm using the term "buffer locking" to refer to excess lateral displacement between coaches)

for me the best solution was this.

It's a bit swings and roundabouts.What you gain on Minories inbound to platform 1 (counting from the top) which is where the buffer locking is really bad, you lose by having S curves (but shallower ones) on the routes between platforms 2 and 3 and the outbound. What you also gain is less of the Minories feel that the designers aimed the main line at the station and missed, a more natural single curve to platforms 1 & 2 and the main line exit not pushed quite so far to the back which would obviously help with the fiddle yard/traverser. 

I did get a slight buffer lock (I actually use Kadees so it's an aesthetic rather than a practical problem) on the inbound to platform one route but far less than with a classic Minories. If you can spare a couple more inches, replacing the medium RH point that's back to back with the Y with a long point obviates that. I'm actually pretty sure that if you used A5s rather than Peco mediums for the left and right hand points there would be no buffer locking.  With this design there probably wouldn't be in 00 with Mk 1s either but, because I'm working in H0 with French main line coaches that are about the same length in H0 as Mk 1s are in 00 ,the lateral displacement is relatively greater compared with the 7/8ths width overall and between buffers  so it looks worse.   

This is how the plan looks in the flesh in two metres of length (the platforms would be extended by 1.5m to handle four coach plus a loco)

and with a train on the critical route between inbound and P1

and the worst case seen from the side

Trying this with the Kadee coupler removed the buffers just lock when propelled. Replacing  that one medium with a long RH point they don't. 

[Harlequin]

I used Streamline large Y's in this formation but not back to back.

 

One of the key feature of Minories is that it has a double track connection to the rest of the world. That means the inbound and outbound tracks should really be parallel at normal crossover spacing.

 

[RobinofLoxley]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I used Streamline large Y's in this formation but not back to back.

 

One of the key feature of Minories is that it has a double track connection to the rest of the world. That means the inbound and outbound tracks should really be parallel at normal crossover spacing.

 

I assumed this to be the significant objection!

[Zomboid]

You could justify a non-standard spacing if the tracks went off to a pair of single track tunnels (such as the present layout at Edinburgh Waverley east). Not a common arrangement, though.

[RobinofLoxley]

2 hours ago, Zomboid said:

You could justify a non-standard spacing if the tracks went off to a pair of single track tunnels (such as the present layout at Edinburgh Waverley east). Not a common arrangement, though.

But as I drew it, the deviation from parallel is though the central points and is restored afterwards. It cant be left in place and extrapolated outwards.

 

Everything in Minories revolves around the central pair of points, after that all the peripherals can be adjusted. But if its taken as a fixed parameter, the 36" length controls the possibilities. It is arbitrary in a way, maybe relating to transportation to exhibitions has been mentioned. Perhaps 36" was the maximum width of the rear seats of a Morris Minor.

 

"Trying this with the Kadee coupler removed the buffers just lock when propelled. Replacing  that one medium with a long RH point they don't". (Pacific 231G). But then the envisaged suburban terminus didnt run on long carriage stock I dont suppose, but in the case of the UK, suburban 57'. Perhaps.

[Chimer]

3 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

But as I drew it, the deviation from parallel is though the central points and is restored afterwards. It cant be left in place and extrapolated outwards.

 

To my eyes, it is that "deviation from parallel through the central points" that makes all your versions just look wrong, somehow.  But if you stuck an oval bridge pier in the gap there would be a reason for it .....

[Lacathedrale]

On 11/05/2021 at 16:05, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

Victoria Square

 

Really lovely stuff, I've taken the liberty of converting this to a rather orthagonal xtrkcad plan in N/2mm - it works quite well in a shade over 8':

 

 

All the best,

[Pacific231G]

On 12/05/2021 at 11:47, RobinofLoxley said:

But as I drew it, the deviation from parallel is though the central points and is restored afterwards. It cant be left in place and extrapolated outwards.

 

Everything in Minories revolves around the central pair of points, after that all the peripherals can be adjusted. But if its taken as a fixed parameter, the 36" length controls the possibilities. It is arbitrary in a way, maybe relating to transportation to exhibitions has been mentioned. Perhaps 36" was the maximum width of the rear seats of a Morris Minor.

 

"Trying this with the Kadee coupler removed the buffers just lock when propelled. Replacing  that one medium with a long RH point they don't". (Pacific 231G). But then the envisaged suburban terminus didnt run on long carriage stock I dont suppose, but in the case of the UK, suburban 57'. Perhaps.

A bit late answering this Robin

The excellent EM gauge Minories (GN) built by Tom Cunnington and others at the MRC for the plan's 50th anniversary followed the original plan as closely as possible, allowing for the wider gauge, and that was very much in CJF's suburban mode with appropriate stock. I looked very closely at that at several shows (Tom even let me operate it at one) and the displacement over the central back to back points was very noticeable on the one critical route from up to platform one even though the stock was non-corridor. The other five routes were fine. I think Tom told me he used A5 points for that layout which is fairly equivalent to a typical three foot radius in 00. They were slightly longer in EM so the overall dimensions went up a bit but only by a few inches.  The layout waou,d take a diesel loco and a four coach suburban set on all three platforms and was operated as an intensive commuter service with turnover locos using the spur. 

[Lacathedrale]

One thing I've been wrestling with is how to get a Minories terminus and a balloon loop into 2x1m (I'm not a metric person but that's quite neat, really) - here's my attempt in Kato Unitrack in N:

 

 

There's a little fudging required, but it seems to work. I've deliberately left more of the return curves visible than would otherwise be the case to increase the % of visible versus 'fiddle'. I would imagine a diagonal backscene starting at the back of the rear platform broadly following the line of the return loops. Curving the throat even more around the corner removes all reverse curves completely. There are obviously other terminus designs which fit more naturally with Unitrack (given that it has both double-scissors and crossovers as standard offerings) but I thought the balloon loop return was interesting to consider. With four blocks (two on the long straight, one in each siding) it provides a magazine of four trains that can arrive and depart before any repetition. If we assume that there is a post office depot and/or a carriage siding in the headshunt, it could provide fertile ground for two operators.

 

The idea of fitting into a 2x1m area is that it could be set up permanently (in theory), but I wonder if a FREMO/N-track/T-trak style modular system might be more suited for this, with Minories as a terminus:

 

 

I have been having a conversation with @justin1985 with regard to the neccesity of fiddle-yards for layouts which are primarily home-based. I had prototyped a version of this plan with Minories in the centre as a terminus off the mainline (like HV on the LCDR mainline) with a double junction and an oval with a passing station instead of a FY. It's using XtrkCAD and Peco turnouts instead of Unitrack and RailModeller Pro - but the concept looked like this:

 

This is a fully double-sided layout, much like a Hornby trackmat!

Edited July 29, 2021 by Lacathedrale

[TJ52]

Good to see you back William. I suppose it all depends on what you want as an outcome. Is a continuous circuit a given, or would you be happy with end to end? There is always the option of sitting and watching trains go by, not forgetting the opportunity to run in engines over a long distance. I get the impression that for you it is the building and operating that is more important. I may be wrong of course.

 

Terry

[Satan's Goldfish]

@Lacathedrale This might not be feasible as i'm not familiar with Kato track geometry, but a couple of thoughts:

 

is it possible to angle the minories throat and keep it towards the front, or are there suitable curved turnout options so the scenic curve is as large a radius as possible? Wider curves always look better running than tight ones.

 

Do you have the space to make the balloon loop double track? If so, how about having a double junction at the back of the layout after the curve with each pair of lines disappearing into 2 separate double track tunnels. The hidden loop tracks should be long enough to hold 2 trains each (4 total) nose to tail, plus no hidden difficult to access point work behind the backscene which is where sods law states things are most likely to derail.

 

Just a thought anyway.

[RobinofLoxley]

@lacathedrale I like the last plan as a concept , particularly as you have resisted the temptation to clutter the plan its just the basics. Essentially this is an end to end layout with passing through or round allowing trains to run continuously. Pretty good for entertainment. My layout in mid build, paused for the summer, does something similar, which is probably why I approve.

 

Also I think the small board is sort of upside down??

[RJS1977]

My only concern with the bottom plan is that the terminating roads at the 'through' station don't appear to balance those at the terminus which effectively means that the next arrival at the terminus will be the train which most recently departed it.

[RobinofLoxley]

12 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

My only concern with the bottom plan is that the terminating roads at the 'through' station don't appear to balance those at the terminus which effectively means that the next arrival at the terminus will be the train which most recently departed it.

Not very railway like I dont suppose but:

Train A leaves terminus, runs round to holding track location alongside the terminus. Train B follows, train A moves to through station, reverses back onto the opposite track while train B is in the holding location; train A can reverse into terminus. Plus other similar moves.

[Zomboid]

A second terminating platform would be one solution, but trains can also already terminate on the lower through platform.

[Nearholmer]

One option might be to add some carriage sidings at the second station, so that rakes can be taken in and out of service, rather than simply ‘turned over’.

 

There is also a more flexible topology that you might be able to fit at the second station.

 

Metropolitan H of RMWeb has used this (without platforms) as fiddle zone on his layout, and it both works well, and is realistic for a busy suburban ‘turn back’ station. Fewer conflicting moves, so more efficient that the side bay. Or, look at Willesden Junction LL, that originally had two terminating bays in the middle, all very toy-train.

 

 

Edited July 31, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Zomboid]

1 minute ago, Nearholmer said:

Or, look at Willesden Junction LL, that originally had two terminating bays in the middle, all very toy-train

Several stations like that around. Leicester Central had a pair of bays in the middle at both ends.

[RJS1977]

I think Birmingham Snow Hill did as well.

[Nearholmer]

Rugby.

 

As Zomboid says, many.

 

The thing about Willesden Junction LL is that its all very small. I'm not certain how many cars the bays would fit, but even a single 501 on the Broad Street shuttle seemed plenty. Its been altered now, to accomodate 5-car trains, and I think the bay has ben "knocked through" to become a single through platform.

 

Another very squashed-up station with turn-back facility is Edgeware Road (Met), which also had to be altered, in that case to squeeze seven cars in, and Aldgate in steam days was a marvel of compression and piling things one on top of another to fit.

Edited July 31, 2021 by Nearholmer

[RobinofLoxley]

5 hours ago, Zomboid said:

A second terminating platform would be one solution, but trains can also already terminate on the lower through platform.

Replacing the left hand point with a double slip would create  a terminus platform but facing the opposite way. Wouldnt be popular as it creates essentially a facing point.

[Satan's Goldfish]

On 29/07/2021 at 17:51, Lacathedrale said:

One thing I've been wrestling with is how to get a Minories terminus and a balloon loop into 2x1m (I'm not a metric person but that's quite neat, really) - here's my attempt in Kato Unitrack in N:

 

 

There's a little fudging required, but it seems to work. I've deliberately left more of the return curves visible than would otherwise be the case to increase the % of visible versus 'fiddle'. I would imagine a diagonal backscene starting at the back of the rear platform broadly following the line of the return loops. Curving the throat even more around the corner removes all reverse curves completely. There are obviously other terminus designs which fit more naturally with Unitrack (given that it has both double-scissors and crossovers as standard offerings) but I thought the balloon loop return was interesting to consider. With four blocks (two on the long straight, one in each siding) it provides a magazine of four trains that can arrive and depart before any repetition. If we assume that there is a post office depot and/or a carriage siding in the headshunt, it could provide fertile ground for two operators.

 

The idea of fitting into a 2x1m area is that it could be set up permanently (in theory), but I wonder if a FREMO/N-track/T-trak style modular system might be more suited for this, with Minories as a terminus:

 

 

I have been having a conversation with @justin1985 with regard to the neccesity of fiddle-yards for layouts which are primarily home-based. I had prototyped a version of this plan with Minories in the centre as a terminus off the mainline (like HV on the LCDR mainline) with a double junction and an oval with a passing station instead of a FY. It's using XtrkCAD and Peco turnouts instead of Unitrack and RailModeller Pro - but the concept looked like this:

 

This is a fully double-sided layout, much like a Hornby trackmat!

 

It's not minories, but YouTube just threw this at me which is 2m x 1m n gauge with a terminus station and track through scenery and it made me think of your post https://youtu.be/-TaiQ5gRghM 

[KingEdwardII]

9 hours ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

YouTube just threw this at me

I'll give my award for "Worst Video Music" to that one.  Although it has plenty of competition.

 

Shame, since the layout is quite impressive.