Theory of General Minories

[t-b-g]

31 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Surely, if you build a turntable FY, it need getting on for as much room as a tight return loop?

 

I would agree but I think it would represent better use of the space because you could get more trains on the turntable than you could on the same area used for loops. I used to operate a layout that had a dumbell fiddle yard with loops in the middle. I attach a plan of one of its 3 levels, the one which included the two fiddle yards. The trains could go into the dead end sidings then reverse out to go round the loop and back the other way. It worked rather well but was not exactly minimum space!

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

4 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I would agree but I think it would represent better use of the space because you could get more trains on the turntable than you could on the same area used for loops. I used to operate a layout that had a dumbell fiddle yard with loops in the middle. I attach a plan of one of its 3 levels, the one which included the two fiddle yards. The trains could go into the dead end sidings then reverse out to go round the loop and back the other way. It worked rather well but was not exactly minimum space!

 

 

I believe the noted American Layout designer John Armstrong used that kind of reversing loop + stub sidings arrangement in some of his schemes, including his own Canandaigua Southern RR (I admit to looking up that spelling ).  I think he also described it in his Kalmbach book “Track Planning for Realistic Operation.”

 

But…

 

It works best on the kind of layout where trains only appear once in each operating session (they run out of and into the single ended sidings, and can be carefully turned in-between operating sessions).

 

So I wouldn’t advocate it for an intensive Minories-style scheme: I would go for the “extra (light) engine” described in recent posts by @t-b-g  as most likely the optimum way to maximise operation / minimise stock handling.

 

Carefully planned, the extra engine approach can offer a mixture of incoming and outgoing local suburban train movements, interspersed with ECS workings and associated station pilot and light engine movements for longer-distance Services to avoid a “yo-yo” feel to operations (as distinct from the ping-pong described a couple of pages ago).

[Keith Addenbrooke]

48 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Mine's not a turntable as such, but it can be picked up, turned round, and put down again, similar to this one from one of CJF's books (except that mine has fold-down end stops).

 

 

If I tried that, I’d get to the point where I crossed my arms and then I’d drop everything.  Do you have somewhere to rest it while turning?

[t-b-g]

3 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

I believe the noted American Layout designer John Armstrong used that kind of reversing loop + stub sidings arrangement in some of his schemes, including his own Canandaigua Southern RR (I admit to looking up that spelling ).  I think he also described it in his Kalmbach book “Track Planning for Realistic Operation.”

 

But…

 

It works best on the kind of layout where trains only appear once in each operating session (they run out of and into the single ended sidings, and can be carefully turned in-between operating sessions).

 

So I wouldn’t advocate it for an intensive Minories-style scheme: I would go for the “extra (light) engine” described in recent posts by @t-b-g  as most likely the optimum way to maximise operation / minimise stock handling.

 

Carefully planned, the extra engine approach can offer a mixture of incoming and outgoing local suburban train movements, interspersed with ECS workings and associated station pilot and light engine movements for longer-distance Services to avoid a “yo-yo” feel to operations (as distinct from the ping-pong described a couple of pages ago).

 

The trains on that layout didn't need turning between sessions. A train would arrive in the fiddle yard, go round the reversing loop and then they would back into the dead end sidings. Then, when they were due to go out, they were already pointing the right way. To do it, you need a full train length between the end of the points to the dead end sidings and the exit onto the layout, which is what spoils it as an idea for small layouts.

 

The method using light engines really does work very well. It was used at several exhibitions and I will certainly use it again. It also gives an opportunity to put locos on a different train, so you get a "mix and match" of locos and trains and it looks as though you have more trains than you really do because they don't always run with the same loco. 

[RJS1977]

9 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

If I tried that, I’d get to the point where I crossed my arms and then I’d drop everything.  Do you have somewhere to rest it while turning?

 

The trick is not to stand at the midpoint when picking it up, but at one end, so that the nearer handle is picked up with a bent arm and the far handle with a straight one. Straightening the bent arm and bending the straight one swings it round.

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 28/11/2021 at 21:13, t-b-g said:

 

The trains on that layout didn't need turning between sessions. A train would arrive in the fiddle yard, go round the reversing loop and then they would back into the dead end sidings. Then, when they were due to go out, they were already pointing the right way. To do it, you need a full train length between the end of the points to the dead end sidings and the exit onto the layout, which is what spoils it as an idea for small layouts.

 

The method using light engines really does work very well. It was used at several exhibitions and I will certainly use it again. It also gives an opportunity to put locos on a different train, so you get a "mix and match" of locos and trains and it looks as though you have more trains than you really do because they don't always run with the same loco. 

The reverted loop fiddle yard also needs hidden track, but - as drawn by Armstrong - one way to conceal it was like this:

 

 

Comparing this with the larger plan shared at the top of the page, this requires an extra train movement - hence being more suitable for turning trains between operating sessions.  Interesting, though not Minories.

Edited April 8, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
(replacement sketch - copy of original had not been kept)

[Zomboid]

That would seem to rely on having proper couplers (I.e. body mounted knuckles) as seems to be popular with American models. Try propelling any number of tension locks round that, especially if they're bogie mounted, and you'll be doing a lot of re-railing.

[t-b-g]

10 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

The reverted loop fiddle yard also needs hidden track, but - as drawn by Armstrong - one way to conceal it was like this:

 

 

Comparing this with the larger plan shared at the top of the page, this requires an extra train movement - hence being more suitable for turning trains between operating sessions.  Interesting, though not Minories.

 

I could see something like that working really well for N Gauge. You would certainly need to be able to propel trains round fairly tight curves in larger scales. It is interesting to see a design that is new to me. Thanks for posting.

[Regularity]

9 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Doable for a lanky teenager; probably not the thing for a more portly middle-aged type (not that I'm intending to typecast either yourself or myself).

I resemble that remark!

[Regularity]

4 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I not that those who have been drawing reverse loops with tiny radius curves have not included extra loops. As soon as you include those the space needed rapidly increases.

It would have been possible, but the layout was designed to fit the space, using available resources, to support operation with a limited amount of stock. I would have preferred larger radius curves, but this solution was perfect to my then needs. An extra loop outside could have been fitted into the space, it it had been needed.

[Lacathedrale]

I can't quite fit a nice 90 degree curve AND a 5' traverser, but a 4' traverser fits the space really, really well. That blank space at the front of the orange baseboard would do well for a lever frame, wouldn't it?

 

The 4' traverser is the limiting factor on train length, but I still think it's quite reasonable - the only train which is above capacity is four 54' coaches and two large tender engines (top and tail)

 

 

There's a nice transition on that curve which I think fits really well. It does mean that the traverser cannot fit directly against it, since the transition starts on the throat board. However for the sake of £80 in baseboards and four lengths of flex track to gain a headshunt and approach for the station, I think the curve is a no-brainer.

 

I have tried to fit a traditional FY into the bottom corner in a few different ways and I just can't see a way to make it work. As it stands the traverser can take a large 4-6-0 and four bogie coaches, or a smaller loco top-and-tail three coaches.

 

With regard to my design decisions earlier, I think I'm pretty much settled on what we have discussed so far:

1. Built on off-the-shelf baseboards
2. Able to be exhibited but primarily a home layout
3. Starting from an early Grouping era (i.e. ready-to-run) and backdated to Pre-group as I build/acquire stock
4. Authentic and engaging operation, not just watching trains go by.
5. Working signals, and in time, working interlocking and maybe even bells.

Though not strictly related to Minories, one final thing to figure out is around the availability of simple, inexpensive pre-group stock kits and RTR. The LBSCR seem well served with Hattons and Hornby's generic coaches, the Bachmann Atlantic and E4, and the Hornby Terrier. I'm not picky about the line, Denny's "Fewer people know the GC vs GW"-approach would probably work just as well. Either way, I am very keen to take cues from @Ravenser and @KV12543 in rehabilitating older models and simple kits, rather than rushing straight to the counter with my metaphorical pocketbook....

Edited November 28, 2021 by Lacathedrale

[simon b]

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Doable for a lanky teenager; probably not the thing for a more portly middle-aged type (not that I'm intending to typecast either yourself or myself). But I'd want to squeeze at least one extra loop around the outside, which brings one down to 1.5" track centre-line to edge of board - a bit tight maybe.

 

If you use setrack for the loops you can fit a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th radius loop inside a 4ft wide board. I have a layout plan on another thread that has the return loops underneath a minories like station, all on a 8 x 4ft board. It's not very portable though.

Edited November 28, 2021 by simon b

[t-b-g]

11 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

I can't quite fit a nice 90 degree curve AND a 5' traverser, but a 4' traverser fits the space really, really well. That blank space at the front of the orange baseboard would do well for a lever frame, wouldn't it?

 

 

There's a nice transition on that curve which I think fits really well. It does mean that the traverser cannot fit directly against it, since the transition starts on the throat board. However for the sake of £80 in baseboards and four lengths of flex track to gain a headshunt and approach for the station, I think the curve is a no-brainer.

 

I have tried to fit a traditional FY into the bottom corner in a few different ways and I just can't see a way to make it work. As it stands the traverser can take a large 4-6-0 and four bogie coaches, or a smaller loco top-and-tail three coaches.

 

With regard to my design decisions earlier, I think I'm pretty much settled on what we have discussed so far:

1. Built on off-the-shelf baseboards
2. Able to be exhibited but primarily a home layout
3. Starting from an early Grouping era (i.e. ready-to-run) and backdated to Pre-group as I build/acquire stock
4. Authentic and engaging operation, not just watching trains go by.
5. Working signals, and in time, working interlocking and maybe even bells.

Though not strictly related to Minories, one final thing to figure out is around the availability of simple, inexpensive pre-group stock kits and RTR. The LBSCR seem well served with Hattons and Hornby's generic coaches, the Bachmann Atlantic and E4, and the Hornby Terrier. I'm not picky about the line, Denny's "Fewer people know the GC vs GW"-approach would probably work just as well. Either way, I am very keen to take cues from @Ravenser and @KV12543 in rehabilitating older models and simple kits, rather than rushing straight to the counter with my metaphorical pocketbook....

 

That looks super just like that. I would certainly be happy with it as a design. I like the decent run of double track that you get between the station throat and the fiddle yard too. Just right for some scenic treatment of a train running through the suburbs, perhaps on a viaduct with businesses in the arches and grotty old back to backs.

 

It is very close to pure Minories too, with just the extra siding for the loading dock, which can add lots of operational interest. Plus, as you have already spotted, all the pointwork on one board, with space for a lever frame.

 

Has that time come when the thinking stops and the building starts?

[simon b]

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

I can't quite fit a nice 90 degree curve AND a 5' traverser, but a 4' traverser fits the space really, really well. That blank space at the front of the orange baseboard would do well for a lever frame, wouldn't it?

 

 

There's a nice transition on that curve which I think fits really well. It does mean that the traverser cannot fit directly against it, since the transition starts on the throat board. However for the sake of £80 in baseboards and four lengths of flex track to gain a headshunt and approach for the station, I think the curve is a no-brainer.

 

I have tried to fit a traditional FY into the bottom corner in a few different ways and I just can't see a way to make it work. As it stands the traverser can take a large 4-6-0 and four bogie coaches, or a smaller loco top-and-tail three coaches.

 

 

A 4ft traverser will be fine, without a turntable you would still need to physically lift the larger engines off the rails to turn it round on a 5ft track anyway, so it's just a case of rolling the coaches along a little.

[Lacathedrale]

@simon b I think the point about the longer traverser that @t-b-g was making was that you could align a traverser road that already contained an outbound train to recieve and outbound light-engine move - and then shuffle it back into the deck - the next time you come to that road you've got a train ready to pull back into the station, and the locomotive that was at the head previously is facing the right direction to back down onto a set of coaches waiting for motive power.

 

If I take a later pre-group coach (i.e. 54') and large tender engine (i.e. 63') as an example, a 4' traverser affords me:

• A large tender engine + four coaches
• Two tank engines (one either end) + four coaches
• Two large tender engines + three coaches (just!)

This doesn't factor in shorter 48' coaches or four/six-wheeled coaches either, which obviously simplify things a fair bit.

 

@t-b-g I think honestly you're probably right. The small problem is that my garage currently has a car in it - which won't get moving until spring - nobody is buying silly MGB GT's in November!

 

 

I guess that won't stop me from collecting the bits, though!

 

[simon b]

That is a point I had overlooked, the need to back a light engine into the station to take a train out. So for true "hands off" operation you would ideally need the extra foot.

 

But that brings the question can you fit 2 loco's and 4 coaches into your platforms? in theory you should only need a traverser the same length as your platform roads, or are you using a pilot loco to release the train engine? 

 

Either way I like the plan, and look forward to seeing it develop.

Edited November 29, 2021 by simon b

[t-b-g]

8 hours ago, simon b said:

That is a point I had overlooked, the need to back a light engine into the station to take a train out. So for true "hands off" operation you would ideally need the extra foot.

 

But that brings the question can you fit 2 loco's and 4 coaches into your platforms? in theory you should only need a traverser the same length as your platform roads, or are you using a pilot loco to release the train engine? 

 

Either way I like the plan, and look forward to seeing it develop.

 

The loco taking a train out can stand beyond the platform, so the deciding factors on train length at the station are signalling and pointwork. You could save a loco length in the station by shunting stock to another platform to release the loco that brought it in but I have found that one of the features that make it interesting to operate is the variety of different ways an arrival can be handled and backing a second loco onto the train in the platform is one of the options.

[Zomboid]

3 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

You could save a loco length in the station by shunting stock to another platform to release the loco that brought it in but

Though there still needs to be space inside the signal/ pointwork for the shunt release loco, so the saving is probably the difference between a 4-6-0 and an 0-6-0T/ 0-4-4T (or thereabouts), which is probably about 8cm.

[Zomboid]

9 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

@t-b-g I think honestly you're probably right. The small problem is that my garage currently has a car in it - which won't get moving until spring - nobody is buying silly MGB GT's in November

Plenty of time for more iterations then!

 

How much could you go about creating away from the garage? If we're talking a broadly portable layout which gets for all intents and purposes permanently set up in the garage, then there's no need to wait until the car's gone to start building if you can do so in your office/ wherever else.

 

Interesting that after much back and forth, the winning design appears to be a basic Minories with an extended approach. Shows how hard it is to improve upon.

[5BarVT]

10 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Though there still needs to be space inside the signal/ pointwork for the shunt release loco, so the saving is probably the difference between a 4-6-0 and an 0-6-0T/ 0-4-4T (or thereabouts), which is probably about 8cm.

Easier if there is, but can be done even if there isn’t: it just blocks up other bits of the station!  as late as the 90s there was a summer Saturday HST from Glasgow Queen St to Scarborough that hung out locking up half of the station.  Signalling to do that is also more complicated, and frowned upon these days, but was common in the 50s and 60s.

Paul.

[t-b-g]

19 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Though there still needs to be space inside the signal/ pointwork for the shunt release loco, so the saving is probably the difference between a 4-6-0 and an 0-6-0T/ 0-4-4T (or thereabouts), which is probably about 8cm.

 

I don't see that. Shunting moves could be controlled directly by the signalman waving flags. There would be no need to change a point that the pilot might be standing on. So the pilot could be beyond the starter signal and standing on the points and still shunt the stock away.

 

I would prefer to get the train loco, stock and the pilot all in the platform behind the protecting signal but it would be possible to shunt it without doing that.

 

It is perhaps more of a thing that would happen on a model railway rather than the full sized one, where such length problems are much less common.

[Lacathedrale]

19 minutes ago, 5BarVT said:

Easier if there is, but can be done even if there isn’t: it just blocks up other bits of the station!  as late as the 90s there was a summer Saturday HST from Glasgow Queen St to Scarborough that hung out locking up half of the station.  Signalling to do that is also more complicated, and frowned upon these days, but was common in the 50s and 60s.

Paul.

 

Bringing it back to Minories, the post 1950's layout at Holborn Viaduct where the outermost platforms were extended as far as possible to accomodate 8-car EMUs, would block various parts of the throat as part of normal daily operation, the middle two platforms being used solely for news/parcels traffic and alternately out of commission entirely during the day.

[Zomboid]

I suppose it depends on the nature of the station. If it has a frequent service for commuters then you're not going to block up the throat for every arrival, but it might be tolerable once or twice a day for "The London Train" or similar.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

11 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

I can't quite fit a nice 90 degree curve AND a 5' traverser, but a 4' traverser fits the space really, really well. That blank space at the front of the orange baseboard would do well for a lever frame, wouldn't it?

 

The 4' traverser is the limiting factor on train length, but I still think it's quite reasonable - the only train which is above capacity is four 54' coaches and two large tender engines (top and tail)

 

 

There's a nice transition on that curve which I think fits really well. It does mean that the traverser cannot fit directly against it, since the transition starts on the throat board. However for the sake of £80 in baseboards and four lengths of flex track to gain a headshunt and approach for the station, I think the curve is a no-brainer.

 

I have tried to fit a traditional FY into the bottom corner in a few different ways and I just can't see a way to make it work. As it stands the traverser can take a large 4-6-0 and four bogie coaches, or a smaller loco top-and-tail three coaches.

 

With regard to my design decisions earlier, I think I'm pretty much settled on what we have discussed so far:

1. Built on off-the-shelf baseboards
2. Able to be exhibited but primarily a home layout
3. Starting from an early Grouping era (i.e. ready-to-run) and backdated to Pre-group as I build/acquire stock
4. Authentic and engaging operation, not just watching trains go by.
5. Working signals, and in time, working interlocking and maybe even bells.

Though not strictly related to Minories, one final thing to figure out is around the availability of simple, inexpensive pre-group stock kits and RTR. The LBSCR seem well served with Hattons and Hornby's generic coaches, the Bachmann Atlantic and E4, and the Hornby Terrier. I'm not picky about the line, Denny's "Fewer people know the GC vs GW"-approach would probably work just as well. Either way, I am very keen to take cues from @Ravenser and @KV12543 in rehabilitating older models and simple kits, rather than rushing straight to the counter with my metaphorical pocketbook....

That’s a clear winner for me too - the extra space for a longer and gentler run into the station looks great - being able to watch trains come and go makes up for the loss of the an extra operating feature in front of the fiddle yard, and with the fiddle yard taking up a smaller proportion of the overall layout space, it doesn’t dominate visually either, by the look of it.

 

As @t-b-g suggested, this looks like a good time to shift from designing to building, before ‘overplanning’ sets in (something I know I’m often very guilty of).

 

The only comment I’d make, which again echoes @t-b-g’s response is to ensure the scenic treatment of the run-in justifies the distance between the terminus and MPD needed for the light engine movements - a viaduct is a good suggestion, and a visual statement for people standing in the doorway (viaducts out of Moor Street heading towards Tyseley spring to mind, although there was space for a third running line there).

 

1 hour ago, 5BarVT said:

Easier if there is, but can be done even if there isn’t: it just blocks up other bits of the station!  as late as the 90s there was a summer Saturday HST from Glasgow Queen St to Scarborough that hung out locking up half of the station.  Signalling to do that is also more complicated, and frowned upon these days, but was common in the 50s and 60s.

Paul.

 

41 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I don't see that. Shunting moves could be controlled directly by the signalman waving flags. There would be no need to change a point that the pilot might be standing on. So the pilot could be beyond the starter signal and standing on the points and still shunt the stock away.

 

I would prefer to get the train loco, stock and the pilot all in the platform behind the protecting signal but it would be possible to shunt it without doing that.

 

It is perhaps more of a thing that would happen on a model railway rather than the full sized one, where such length problems are much less common.

 

38 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

 

Bringing it back to Minories, the post 1950's layout at Holborn Viaduct where the outermost platforms were extended as far as possible to accomodate 8-car EMUs, would block various parts of the throat as part of normal daily operation, the middle two platforms being used solely for news/parcels traffic and alternately out of commission entirely during the day.

 

37 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I suppose it depends on the nature of the station. If it has a frequent service for commuters then you're not going to block up the throat for every arrival, but it might be tolerable once or twice a day for "The London Train" or similar.

These are all good and informative examples, but from a strict model railway design perspective, it can be advisable to avoid stock movements that involve starting or stopping on point work, simply due to the increased risk of stalling.  Running shorter rolling stock from an earlier era would seem to be a good option, and meets @Lacathedrale’s objectives.  Just a thought, Keith.

Edited November 29, 2021 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Lacathedrale]

Interesting - I know that the GER were famous for their Jazz service with outbound locos attached to the rear of inbound trains and shooting off in very quick succession, but I've not heard much elsewhere? No doubt a gap in knowledge there...

 

Either way, variety is the spice of life and doing some fiddling (ha!) with the 8' Minories layout pictured above, every combination of large/medium/small locomotives and three or four 48' or 54' bogie coaches works fine except a 'Long Train' of a large 4-6-0 and four 54' coaches, where only a small pilot loco fits.

 

The 'Long Train' is already larger than I had set as my minimum so I'm pleased it fits at all.  While I think there ought to be some logically elegant way of  managing moves for a 'Long Train' but as @Zomboid has pointed out, maybe it's a once-per-session princess which fouls pointwork and generally makes life miserable for the signalman at St. Giles?