Really Useful not-quite-Minories

[Josie]

With the N Gauge paused awaiting better weather for some major surgery, and aspirations of grandeur in the spare bedroom in the longer term, I found myself pondering an evening activity for the run up to summer.

 

The brief was that it had to be simple to build and understand and use as much infrastructure/kits/items as I already had lying around unused.

 

4 'Really Useful Box' sized boards (able to fit into 2 x 77L boxes) and a huge amount of Setrack from my first layout attempts over 10 years ago were unearthed after a recent house move. 

 

The following plan came together using a bit of Minories-style inspiration but with two single lines into a shared station.

 

The boards were dragged downstairs, track found and laid out tonight:

 

Seen in the flesh vs the AnyRail sketch is the attempt to introduce a gentle curve into the main platform roads

 

My intention is lots of the sort of engines and stock I really like, small and pre grouping! Here the P Class with W&U stock stands in the Bay Platform demonstrating well why I like this theme much

The 4th board isn't shown here, but will bolt onto the two single lines and act as a FY with Casettes as 21" a piece for holding and turning stock round.

 

All being well, I'll be marking up for droppers, point control tubing and isolating sections over the next couple of days

 

 

 

 

Jo

 

[Flying Pig]

TBH I don't think Minories is giving you anything here, though this isn't quite Minories as it has two crossovers of the same hand, rather than one of each. That means trains to or from the top branch can't use the bottom platform at all, but trains to or from the bottom branch have an unnecessary duplicate route to the top platform. 

 

A simple pair of crossovers would be more flexible.

[Josie]

20 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

TBH I don't think Minories is giving you anything here, though this isn't quite Minories as it has two crossovers of the same hand, rather than one of each. That means trains to or from the top branch can't use the bottom platform at all, but trains to or from the bottom branch have an unnecessary duplicate route to the top platform. 

 

A simple pair of crossovers would be more flexible.

A good point, and on reflection I think you're right. Having started with the Minories plan and worked back thats really where I'd claim it to have come from.
I'm keen to keep the curvature in the throat (and ideally platforms) but will pause for a moment and see whether I can rejig it. I'm not anti the double route as fortunately not short of L and R pointwork although there is likely a better way to arrange it and allow universal access. I'm also conscious of not cutting too much platform length out. Watch this space...

The theme will stay though, sketching out viewing angles has set me onto viewing the platforms 'under' a trainshed.

 

 

Jo

[aac]

Because minories plans are not generally based on large stations, constricted as we are by space limitations, a simple rule in creating your design could be described as "Tracks IN to all platforms, and  platforms OUT to all tracks." Hope that helps.

 

aac

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, aac said:

Because minories plans are not generally based on large stations, constricted as we are by space limitations, a simple rule in creating your design could be described as "Tracks IN to all platforms, and  platforms OUT to all tracks." Hope that helps.

 

aac

 

You don't have to.  For one person operation and a less intense operating regime, separating the arrival and departure platforms and having to shunt before departure may be seen as increasing the play value.  That requires just a single trailing crossover with the conventional double track approach, but the OP has complicated things by imagining two separate single lines.

 

You could start with the layout as posted, remove one of the crossovers (duplication achieves nothing here) and run the approach as double track with the junction imagined off scene (perhaps some splitting distants on the starters to suggest it).

[Hans.Albern]

 

 

Hi Jo,

I wonder whether you are aware that you placed the switches - even the tongue rails! - on the baseboard joint?

Quite challenging and far behind at least my skills.

Best regards Hans

 

I just realized Jo has got 4 Boards and can set them up in a 1 board, 2 firmly connected boards, 1 board configuration to avoid switches over a baseboard joint.

Edited February 24 by Hans.Albern

[Josie]

1 hour ago, Hans.Albern said:

 

 

Hi Jo,

I wonder whether you are aware that you placed the switches - even the tongue rails! - on the baseboard joint?

Quite challenging and far behind at least my skills.

Best regards Hans

 

I just realized Jo has got 4 Boards and can set them up in a 1 board, 2 firmly connected boards, 1 board configuration to avoid switches over a baseboard joint.

Exactly that! The centre boards with the throat pointwork will be a fixed unit with the RH and LH boards being the removeable ones for storage 🙂

[Josie]

3 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

You don't have to.  For one person operation and a less intense operating regime, separating the arrival and departure platforms and having to shunt before departure may be seen as increasing the play value.  That requires just a single trailing crossover with the conventional double track approach, but the OP has complicated things by imagining two separate single lines.

 

You could start with the layout as posted, remove one of the crossovers (duplication achieves nothing here) and run the approach as double track with the junction imagined off scene (perhaps some splitting distants on the starters to suggest it).

 

 

In terms of redesign, it was staring me in the face the entire time: Simply adding a pair of RH points in the place of the first two LH points on the approach pointwork. This gives access to all Platforms from all lines and although there is a duplicated route, it looks far better. It does also mean a loco can be sat in the throat on the arrivals line, and a train snake around it to access the platform

 

 

(Flex to be tweaked for the arrivals road)

 

 

 

What this also allows is to make it a true double line approach, and in all honesty I suspect means I'll amend to double track rather than two independent lines (the idea of splitting distants on the starters is very appealing!)

 

 

 

Jo