Theory of General Minories

[The Johnster]

When I originally planned my BLT as a restarter last year, I designed it with Peco medium radius points as the minimum (except for the engine release crossover which never has any stock propelled through it) (in theory), on the basis that I was to be using stock with 'scale' couplings, instanters and screws. Pointwork at the station throat was very much inspired by Minories with avoidance of reverse curves.  I very rapidly found out that in the quarter century since I'd last shunted any of this stock, my eyesight, steadiness of hand, and hand/eye coordination had deteriorated quite a bit, and that I couldn't handle the couplings any more.  A rethink was needed.  And some of my stock still buffer locked... (GW auto trailers with long buffer shanks).

 

The alternatives as I saw them then were tension locks, Kaydees, or S & W or some derivate thereof.  I wanted manual uncoupling at any point on the layout, which removed some of the attraction of automatic systems, and remember a club layout using S & Ws that worked very well eventually but was a b*****d to set up.  That was S & W out of the mix.  Kaydees looked like a flyer, but there is no visual advantage on British Outline stock, they are just as ugly as t/ls, and I am confused by the numbers and wanted to crack on with the layout, so opted for t/ls.  This did not mean that my problems were over as a lot of them had to be retrofitted to stock that had had them years ago but had had the mountings cut away to install scale couplings.  Height is critical, there are several different designs, and the concept of compatibility is, shall we say, loosely applied; it was every bit as much a faff as the S & Ws but we got there in the end and all of my couplers will couple to new stock with NEM pockets and t/ls

 

I can now couple up reliably at any point on the layout and uncouple with increasing dexterity and effectiveness using a shunting pole; I have a situation I am content with despite the lack of close coupling between vehicles.  The advantage is that buffer locking is eliminated, even on the auto trailers, and I could now consider using setrack pointwork and curves in the fiddle yard, which has incidentally been extended and now runs around a 45 degree bend, which could not have been achieved with the 36 inch Peco medium radius.  My sharpest curvature, all on the hidden part of the layout, is the inside radius of a no.3 point leading to the innermost fiddle yard road; all my stock runs through it, the longest fixed wheelbase being a Hornby 42xx 2-8-0 with plenty of sideplay, and all stock can be propelled reliably through it with one exception, which I will come back to.  The other fiddle yard roads are no.4, with one incorporating a no.4 reverse curve.  

 

I have a rake of Ratio 4 wheelers for a miner's workman's train, and these will not run around the no.3 radius inside curve in the fiddle yard.  The problem is that the rigidly mounted tension locks they are fitted with, from the kits, foul the hooks on the inside of the loops on this curve, and the coaches are forced off the road.  Even on the larger no.4 radius of the rest of the fiddle yard, they are at the extremity of their ability, and have to be driven carefully with a constant acceleration to keep things in order.  They will buffer lock on the no.4 reverse curve, even being pulled, and have a habit of the the loop bars overriding when they are being propelled (so they are never propelled).  They are fairly heavily ballasted.  They behave themselves well enough on the scenic part of the layout.

 

I include this because it may be relevant to those planning a Minories derivate.  My advice, FWIW, is to make the station throat pointwork as wide a radius as you have room for, do not consider propelling without the use of tension lock or Kaydee couplers that will prevent buffer locking, do not use long wheelbase 4 wheeled stock unless your minimum radius is no.3 or above, or 36" if you are propelling, and do not propel GW auto trailers or any other bow ended stock with long shank buffers over anything less than 4 feet radius if you use scale couplings.  Close coupled stock like B sets may buffer lock as well if coupled at scale distance.

 

As I see it, propelling of empty stock into and out of the station is an essential component of the way Minories operates.  It can be dispensed with by having a pilot remove the stock and draw it back into it's departure platform after the train loco is released, or a new train loco simply couple on for the next working, but I would expect those forms of operation to be indicative of the most intense rush hour working, normal daytime working should involve propelling, either to carriage sidings beyond the scenic break or for the loco to run around and set them back into the departure platform.  The cleverness of the design is that it allows this variety of types of operating, dealing with the intensity of the traffic.  If you are adapting it to GW practice, B sets, auto trailers, and 4 wheelers for any period pre about mid 30s, are essentials; it may be that the plan is not suited to GW/WR steam period layouts using RTR stock in the more space restricted forms it takes.

[Pacific231G]

I found that using all small radius points with a straight(ish) section of track between the problem points, with the restriction that it all still has to fit onto the 42in Minories '89 baseboard, doesn't fix the problem unfortunately:

Minories 17 small radius test.png

Using small points still doesn't create room for a long enough straight section.

 

If I had more room a straight section (the length of the bogie-centre-to-bogie-centre) would undoubtedly fix the problem.

 

But I want to be faithful to the Minories '89 design and so I have to accept the reverse curve and the limitations that it imposes.

Either:

• Use tension hook couplings (or similar) that can be propelled over that route without problems.

Or:

• Just don't propel any long vehicles with large outswings over that route - and that might not be so bad in practice because:
  • They can be pulled over that route in either direction (so long as corridor connections are not a problem)
  • Shorter vehicles are not a problem
  • Long vehicles must be propelled into or out of platform 1 from the departure line

 

As you say, David, some compromise is inevitable trying to fit any interesting pointwork into such a small area and I guess we've explored the limits and found out where the biggest compromise has to be made! I hope you've got a bit more leeway to fit your terminus and fiddle yard into your design space. Do you have a track plan?

 

PhilM

Hi Phil

 

Here's my track plan for the seven foor by one foot version of Minories No. SP35 in 60 plans for small locations. The grid is 6 inches.

I've used medium radius points apart from the point switching between platforms two and three and the one accessing the long siding. Neither of those should give any problems with buffer locking and this keeps all the pointwork on the one board..This arrangement does put the platform one and two tracks rather closer together at their right hand end so you need to watch the clearances though the two inch (50 mm) separation that Peco track normally gives is wider than it needs to be for British stock in 4mm/ft scale.

 

The alternative is to make the first point at the entrance a small radius Streamline, use the same for the siding point and keep everything else as mediums. I don't know that you really need the joggle in platform three. Presumably Cyril Freezer wanted to avoid a boringly straight line but he didn't  do it for plan SP36.

Even with ths narrow baseboard and just seven feet of length I'd still be tempted to put in an extra point on the siding to make it a two road yard of some description. If you're being pernickety there should be a trap point protecting platform three from the siding. .

 

In either case, because the critical back to back points are now three foot radius, I think you'll probably avoid buffer locking in OO unless you're using long modern coaches. 56 ft coaches would I think be fine. I'm in H0 so everything is correspondingly smaller (vehicles may be slightly larger the other side of the Channel but the height size and positioning of buffers and drawhooks is the same.

 

This is the version of Minories i'm currently looking at. It uses one Y in the main throat to ease the apparent buffer locking problem (apparent because I don't actually use scale couplings) and is a total of four metres long - the longest wall of the potential room.- including the fiddle yard.

The grid for this is 25cms.

 

a short but apparently longer goods shed would view block the entrance tracks and there would possibly be a road bridge to separate the entrance trackwork from the platforms so hiding how short trains really are though an overall roof might achieve the same result. . For minimal use it could be confined to the middle three metres (one for the platforms, one for the throat and one for the fiddle yard, but that would mean very short trains.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Harlequin]

[snip]

 

This is the version of Minories i'm currently looking at. It uses one Y in the main throat to ease the apparent buffer locking problem (apparent because I don't actually use scale couplings) and is a total of four metres long - the longest wall of the potential room.- including the fiddle yard.

The grid for this is 25cms.

Minories with Y in centre throat & goods yard 4m.jpg

 

a short but apparently longer goods shed would view block the entrance tracks and there would possibly be a road bridge to separate the entrance trackwork from the platforms so hiding how short trains really are though an overall roof might achieve the same result. . For minimal use it could be confined to the middle three metres (one for the platforms, one for the throat and one for the fiddle yard, but that would mean very short trains.

 

Hi David,

 

Here's an attempt at your terminus, using the "Minories" idea of turning the tracks very definitely across the platforms and not deviating once that turn has been made:

 

I've used large radius points (purple) for the difficult reverse curve and suggested a double slip in the goods area to save space and make shunting a bit more flexible. Everything else is medium radius.

 

PhilM

[Pacific231G]

Hi David,

 

Here's an attempt at your terminus, using the "Minories" idea of turning the tracks very definitely across the platforms and not deviating once that turn has been made:

Pacific Terminus 1.png

 

I've used large radius points (purple) for the difficult reverse curve and suggested a double slip in the goods area to save space and make shunting a bit more flexible. Everything else is medium radius.

 

PhilM

Thanks for this Phil. Using two large radius points for the reverse curve is one of the permutations I've tried before. I've just laid it out again and it does give a very smooth flow with slightly less lateral displacement over the reverse curve than even a single medium radius point with no reverse. That does make it very tempting (and always has since I first started experimenting with Minories)

The extra length at an angle does increase the pushover from the main line to the platforms (the sense that the railway's surveyors aimed for the station site but missed) but in fact this is only 18mm so doesn't make a lot of difference.

 

The real catch for me is that using the two long points makes the throat 9cms longer than with entirely medium radius points or my variation including one medium Y (which is the same length as a medium). Though that doesn't seem much it makes the total throat length 38inches or 98cms. which, with a metre long board, only leaves 1cm between the end of the points and the end of the board .It may of course be possible to cut that down a bit by judicious trimming of the points and before seriously working on this particular arrangement some of my clapped out second hand points may well be sacrificed.Of course I could always learn to build my own pointwork.

   

The total length I have to work with is just 4 metres- for various reasons the room isn't suitable for an L- which makes the theoretical absolute maximum train length with this arrangement 150cms. In practice that needs to come down by at least five cms. With the stock i'm using, 130cms is just long enough for a Pacific and four coaches but to be at all convincing it really needs a fifth vehicle that would make it 150-155 cms.   This is definitely a quart into a pint pot exercise but, if you've been following Danstercivicman's inspiring Birmingham Hope St. thread, you'll know how good a Minories based layout can be. .  

Edited September 17, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Harlequin]

Thanks for this Phil. Using two large radius points for the reverse curve is one of the permutations I've tried before. I've just laid it out again and it does give a very smooth flow with slightly less lateral displacement over the reverse curve than even a single medium radius point with no reverse. That does make it very tempting (and always has since I first started experimenting with Minories)

The extra length at an angle does increase the pushover from the main line to the platforms (the sense of the main line aiming for the station but missing) but in fact this is only 18mm so doesn't make a lot of difference.

 

The real catch for me is that using the two long points makes the throat 9cms longer than with entirely medium radius points or my variation including one medium Y (which is the same length as a medium). Though that doesn't seem much it makes the total throat length 38inches or 98cms. which, with a metre long board, only leaves 1cm between the end of the points and the end of the board .It may of course be possible to cut that down a bit by judicious trimming of the points and before seriously working on this particular arrangement some of my clapped out second hand points may well be sacrificed.Of course I could always learn to build my own pointwork.

   

The total length I have to work with is just 4 metres- for various reasons the room isn't suitable for an L- which makes the theoretical absolute maximum train length with this arrangement 150cms. In practice that needs to come down by at least five cms. With the stock i'm using, 130cms is just long enough for a Pacific and four coaches but to be at all convincing it really needs a fifth vehicle that would make it 150-155 cms.   This is definitely a quart into a pint pot exercise but, if you've been following Danstercivicman's inspiring Birmingham Hope St. thread, you'll know how good a Minories based layout can be. .  

 

So, the baseboard sizes are 1500mm, 1000mm and 1500mm, all 400mm wide, right? Is there any leeway to move the break points between boards? Are they demountable or fixed? Is there a wall to the north (I assume so)?

 

What type of fiddle yard are you thinking of? (Given the 1500mm length of the fiddle yard and your ideal train length I guess there isn't enough room for any pointwork in the fiddle yard so the options are traverser, sector plate or cassettes.)

 

Is the model UK or continental?

 

Thanks for the tip about Birmingham Hope St.

 

PhilM

[Harlequin]

Hi again,

 

I've just had a brainwave and I think this one works rather well!

 

One long radius point (purple) is preserved but a pair of large radius Ys (green) are now used so that:

• The pair of Ys turn both tracks a further 6 degrees so that they remain parallel while sending the incoming line towards platform 3 and the goods depot
• The reverse curve into platform 1 is now very smooth - probably no buffer locking
• The ladder of 4 critical points between platform 3 and the outgoing line fit comfortably on the central 1000mm baseboard
• The double slip in the platform 3 line / goods depot is now cleanly on the left hand baseboard with plenty of space and a single track connection back to the goods sidings on the central baseboard
• There's definitely room for ~1500mm long trains on platform 1.

 

(Peco Streamline double or single slips have quite a small radius so traffic doesn't move over them as smoothly as larger radius points joined toe-to-toe.)

 

Phil :-)

Edited September 16, 2017 by Harlequin

[Regularity]

Hi David,

 

Here's an attempt at your terminus, using the "Minories" idea of turning the tracks very definitely across the platforms and not deviating once that turn has been made:

Pacific Terminus 1.png

 

I've used large radius points (purple) for the difficult reverse curve and suggested a double slip in the goods area to save space and make shunting a bit more flexible. Everything else is medium radius.

 

PhilM

You can replace the two turnouts which are toe-to-toe, highlighted in purple, with a single slip (slip curve to the bottom of the diagram - no point in a double slip as the route isn't needed) and replace the RH turnout providing access to the short loco spur with a Y connected to to heel with the leftmost turnout.

This reduces the overall length of the throats by one turnout.

Edit: very rough sketch attached.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Regularity

[Pacific231G]

You can replace the two turnouts which are toe-to-toe, highlighted in purple, with a single slip (slip curve to the bottom of the diagram - no point in a double slip as the route isn't needed) and replace the RH turnout providing access to the short loco spur with a Y connected to to heel with the leftmost turnout.

This reduces the overall length of the throats by one turnout.

Thanks for this. I've never been that keen on using slips- though SNCF are so it would probably help the Gallic feel-  but that might work and a friend of mine has a Code 75 single slip he wants to sell This also produces a significantly shorter throat.

 

However, I've just been trying this arrangement out with a Code 100 double slip and the radius of that is actually quite small, smaller than even a medium radius point* so that simply taking one of the curved routes through it with straight track at either end produces definite buffer locking between my pair of test coaches (I've remove a coupler from each of them so that I can test the actual buffer displacement)  Are Peco's code 75 single slips any better? .

 

*Update, I've just checked Peco's site and they quote a nominal radius of 24" for the code 75 single slip so it's effectively equivalent to a small radius point. Not good..

Edited September 16, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Regularity]

The radius on Peco's double slip was on of the drivers behind me starting to build my own track, at the age of 14.

 

I found some examples a few years later: I wasn't as good as I thought had been!

 

Still, the design principle is there!

[Clive Mortimore]

 

Nothing wrong with Peco slips and tandem points. No buffer locking to any of the platforms when propelling a four car DMU with the power car at the fiddle yard end.

 

 

It flows. Just get on a build a Minories type layout, they are fun to operate.

 

 

[Budgie]

I found some examples a few years later: I wasn't as good as I thought had been!

You've got to start somewhere.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Budgie

[Harlequin]

Hi David,

 

Further inspiration came to me!...

 

I am assuming that the walls of the room are to north, east and west of the plans we've been exchanging. If that's the case then the fiddle yard incoming and outgoing tracks need to be at the front of the baseboard ("south" on the drawings) so that a traverser or sector plate has room to move away from the wall.

 

To achieve that I have rotated the design by 180 degrees:

 

Aspects of this layout:

• The goods sidings/buildings are now at the back so don't obscure the platforms and passenger traffic.
• Locos refuelling, being cleaned, or whatever are on display right at the front of the layout.
• Instead of trying to straighten up the platform lines I set them at a diagonal and this avoids reverse curves on entry, gives a smidge more length, makes carriage-to-platform clearance more comfortable and makes the layout a bit more "dynamic".
• Easily 1500mm platform length for both platforms 1 and 2.
• 1450mm width traverser - but it could be wider depending on how it's constructed.
• Easy access to traverser entry/exit to tweak alignment and fix derailments.

(I reverted to medium radius points for the reverse curve because I think the large radius Y's solve that problem - but one or more large radius points could probably still be fitted within the central metre baseboard if required.)

 

As with my previous suggestion, it's the large radius Y's that really make this work. The reverse curve from the down line into platform 1 is very smooth and the other arm of the Y throws the line to platform 3 further across the baseboard, as needed.

 

PhilM

Edited September 17, 2017 by Harlequin

[Pacific231G]

005a.jpg

 

Nothing wrong with Peco slips and tandem points. No buffer locking to any of the platforms when propelling a four car DMU with the power car at the fiddle yard end.

 

003a.jpg

 

It flows. Just get on a build a Minories type layout, they are fun to operate.

 

017a.jpg

Hi Clive.

 

Your layout looks interesting. Is there any more about it on another thread?

 

There's nothing wrong with Peco's slips and the geometry looks very similar to an SMP double slip that I've just been looking at but it depends on the stock you're using. With my Roco H0 scale "Bruhat" main line coaches- the worst case of my Ep III SNCF main line coaches- I simply do get significant buffer locking when propelling through the curved route. I get the same with any nominally two foot radius pointwork (which Peco slips apparently are) even just taking the branching route through a short turnout with straight track at eiither end produces a massive displacement.

 

Buffer locking through small radius pointwork isn't a new problem. I'm just reading an article in the May 1954 MRN on this very subject

 

The test coaches I'm using are fitted with fairly flimsy scale buffers so clearly designed to have buffing couplers (which in practice they do) and I'm not sure if 4mm scale vehicles the same length with correspondingly wider buffers would experience buffer locking to the same degree. Hasn't it also been common practice for those using scale couplers with coaching stock to fit slightly wide of scale buffers to them?

 

Buffer locking isn't the real issue for me, I use Kadees or Roco close couplers and have no interntion of using scale screw link couplers, it's mainly just a way of quantifying the degree of displacement. What does look bad is for most of the interior of a corridor connection to be revealed every time a pair of coaches goes over pointwork or for one of each set of buffers to line up with the opposite drawhook . Any of our OO or H0 scale passengers trying to find a seat or returning to their own seat after visiting the buffet would end up as a bloody mess in the four foot.

 

Wagons are far more forgiving and even my relatively long wheel base (compared with British10-12ft ) European four wheel wagons are perfectly happy trundling over 2ft radius crossovers with their buffers in good contact.

 

I've laid out the core pointwork of a Minories equivalent using what would be a single slip

This shows the maximum throwover and the buffers were completely separated every time .

 

 I've had a go at a Minories equivalent plan using a single slip instead of the two back to back points

The reduced length of the throat is attractive but two of the six routes have to negotiate the two foot radius curved route through the slip. These include one of the two routes that now include an immediate S and to avoid extreme buffer movement the points switching between platforms 2 and 3 would probably need to be long .

In Cyril Freezer's design only one route  has an immediate S, the other five all have a straight the length of a point between the reverse curves and with medium radius points that's at least the length between bogie centres of a long coach.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Pacific231G]

Hi David,

 

Further inspiration came to me!...

 

I am assuming that the walls of the room are to north, east and west of the plans we've been exchanging. If that's the case then the fiddle yard incoming and outgoing tracks need to be at the front of the baseboard ("south" on the drawings) so that a traverser or sector plate has room to move away from the wall.

 

To achieve that I have rotated the design by 180 degrees:

Pacific Terminus 4.png

 

Aspects of this layout:

• The goods sidings/buildings are now at the back so don't obscure the platforms and passenger traffic.
• Locos refuelling, being cleaned, or whatever are on display right at the front of the layout.
• Instead of trying to straighten up the platform lines I set them at a diagonal and this avoids reverse curves on entry, gives a smidge more length, makes carriage-to-platform clearance more comfortable and makes the layout a bit more "dynamic".
• Easily 1500mm platform length for both platforms 1 and 2.
• 1450mm width traverser - but it could be wider depending on how it's constructed.
• Easy access to traverser entry/exit to tweak alignment and fix derailments.

(I reverted to medium radius points for the reverse curve because I think the large radius Y's solve that problem - but one or more large radius points could probably still be fitted within the central metre baseboard if required.)

 

As with my previous suggestion, it's the large radius Y's that really make this work. The reverse curve from the down line into platform 1 is very smooth and the other arm of the Y throws the line to platform 3 further across the baseboard, as needed.

 

PhilM

 

Hi Phil

This has a nice flow to it and, though most of the reverses are immediate, they do all involve a larger radius turnout on at least one side. It also preserve CJF's principle that "every train just has one wiggle". The immediate reverses do still give what would be buffer locking if I weren't using Kadees but with my H0 stock any immediate reverse that includes a medium radius (nominal 3ft) point will have that problen. I suspect that something like a pair of BR Mk 1s in 00 would be perfectly happy even with non-buffing couplers.

 

I'm probably not looking at a traverser or sector plate (and certainly not a 7 road one) so the position of the main line track is not so critical and in any case the wall in question has a firebreast. 

Given that what you have as a loco servicing track would actually be a bay platform for autorails and postal/baggage cars, I'm seeing the headshunt and therefore the TJD (double slip) behind platform 3 as probably unnecessary unless the terminus is also marshalling local goods trains, That is possible and a reversing terminus like Fort William or Tulle  or one serving a secondary or branch line as well as a main lne such as Deauville-Trouville, Weymouth or Lowestoft may provide some interesting working.  

[Budgie]

Hi, Pacific231G

 

If you're modelling the SNCF, why not use the Gare de la Bastille track plan?

[Pacific231G]

Hi, Pacific231G

 

If you're modelling the SNCF, why not use the Gare de la Bastille track plan?

Hi Jane

Do you mean this one?

 

 

or this slightly reduced version with four platforms and a smaller loco shed based entirely on Peco medium radius left and right hand points with NO reverse curves.

 

I'm actually extremely familiar with Bastille (though I missed seeing it in operation by about nine months - curses!) .

Three reasons I don't want to model it. .

 

1. It's all passenger with no goods facilities .

2.Though very compact as a prototype it would still be a large model.

3. Except for one brief period immediately after the occupation when it was the terminus of the Mulhouse main line because a viaduct was down, it ran an intense but purely suburban service with a fleet of identical tank locos.

I do know someone who has modelled it though.

 

Bastille really was the original Minories writ larger.  

However , you could cut it down to four platform roads and use the second shed as a goods depot (rather like the other original Minories plan) possibly losing the loco shed 

.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Harlequin]

Hi Phil

This has a nice flow to it and, though most of the reverses are immediate, they do all involve a larger radius turnout on at least one side. It also preserve CJF's principle that "every train just has one wiggle". The immediate reverses do still give what would be buffer locking if I weren't using Kadees but with my H0 stock any immediate reverse that includes a medium radius (nominal 3ft) point will have that problen. I suspect that something like a pair of BR Mk 1s in 00 would be perfectly happy even with non-buffing couplers.

 

I'm probably not looking at a traverser or sector plate (and certainly not a 7 road one) so the position of the main line track is not so critical and in any case the wall in question has a firebreast. 

Given that what you have as a loco servicing track would actually be a bay platform for autorails and postal/baggage cars, I'm seeing the headshunt and therefore the TJD (double slip) behind platform 3 as probably unnecessary unless the terminus is also marshalling local goods trains, That is possible and a reversing terminus like Fort William or Tulle  or one serving a secondary or branch line as well as a main lne such as Deauville-Trouville, Weymouth or Lowestoft may provide some interesting working.  

 

Thanks,

 

One last improvement, then:

• Large radius points for all reverse curves.
• I think this layout needs a traverser because any points in the fiddle yard would reduce the length of the trains it could store. (More roads = more storage and more operating potential.)
• Escape route for passenger locos from platform 1.
• Goods yard with 3 sidings and headshunt that can be operated independently from the passenger side (because you said passenger alone was not enough).
• Concealed fiddle yard connection in goods shed (as I think you've hinted at in previous plans).

I'm happy to provide a to-scale PDF if anyone is interested.

 

Phil

Edited September 18, 2017 by Harlequin

[Budgie]

Hi Jane

Do you mean this one?

 

Bastille throat 1950s.jpg

 

or this slightly reduced version with four platforms and a smaller loco shed based entirely on Peco medium radius left and right hand points with NO reverse curves.

Bastille layout 4 voie reduction Peco MedRad.JPG

Well, I suppose I meant that one should take inspiration from it, although if I were to use it I would use the reduced version. If you compare the Bastille plan with the Minories plan, you will see that Minories has reverse curves because the layout in Minories is straight, whereas Bastille is curved. So you could emulate Bastille by eliminating that final curve leading to the traverser fiddle yard.

 

Four reasons I don't want to model it.

... 

Bastille really was the original Minories writ larger.

Fair enough.

[danstercivicman]

Thanks,

 

One last improvement, then:

Pacific Terminus 5A.png

• Large radius points for all reverse curves.
• I think this layout needs a traverser because any points in the fiddle yard would reduce the length of the trains it could store. (More roads = more storage and more operating potential.)
• Escape route for passenger locos from platform 1.
• Goods yard with 3 sidings and headshunt that can be operated independently from the passenger side (because you said passenger alone was not enough).
• Concealed fiddle yard connection in goods shed (as I think you've hinted at in previous plans).

I'm happy to provide a to-scale PDF if anyone is interested.

 

Phil

 

Looks good that, a subtle tweak on the original plan!

[RJS1977]

Thanks,

 

One last improvement, then:

Pacific Terminus 5A.png

• Large radius points for all reverse curves.
• I think this layout needs a traverser because any points in the fiddle yard would reduce the length of the trains it could store. (More roads = more storage and more operating potential.)
• Escape route for passenger locos from platform 1.
• Goods yard with 3 sidings and headshunt that can be operated independently from the passenger side (because you said passenger alone was not enough).
• Concealed fiddle yard connection in goods shed (as I think you've hinted at in previous plans).

I'm happy to provide a to-scale PDF if anyone is interested.

 

Phil

 

Only thing I would say is that CJF deliberately designed Minories with the tracks parallel to the baseboard edge to enable a modeller to extend the platforms if more space became available (e.g. after a house move, or for exhibition purposes).

[Harlequin]

Only thing I would say is that CJF deliberately designed Minories with the tracks parallel to the baseboard edge to enable a modeller to extend the platforms if more space became available (e.g. after a house move, or for exhibition purposes).

Sure, but in this is designed for a specific room size of 4m width.

 

Phil

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hi David,

 

Further inspiration came to me!...

 

I am assuming that the walls of the room are to north, east and west of the plans we've been exchanging. If that's the case then the fiddle yard incoming and outgoing tracks need to be at the front of the baseboard ("south" on the drawings) so that a traverser or sector plate has room to move away from the wall.

 

To achieve that I have rotated the design by 180 degrees:

Pacific Terminus 4.png

 

Aspects of this layout:

• The goods sidings/buildings are now at the back so don't obscure the platforms and passenger traffic.
• Locos refuelling, being cleaned, or whatever are on display right at the front of the layout.
• Instead of trying to straighten up the platform lines I set them at a diagonal and this avoids reverse curves on entry, gives a smidge more length, makes carriage-to-platform clearance more comfortable and makes the layout a bit more "dynamic".
• Easily 1500mm platform length for both platforms 1 and 2.
• 1450mm width traverser - but it could be wider depending on how it's constructed.
• Easy access to traverser entry/exit to tweak alignment and fix derailments.

(I reverted to medium radius points for the reverse curve because I think the large radius Y's solve that problem - but one or more large radius points could probably still be fitted within the central metre baseboard if required.)

 

As with my previous suggestion, it's the large radius Y's that really make this work. The reverse curve from the down line into platform 1 is very smooth and the other arm of the Y throws the line to platform 3 further across the baseboard, as needed.

 

PhilM

I think that's the best Minories that I have ever seen. I love the way that putting the tracks on a diagonal has got rid of the double-reverse curve.

[Satan's Goldfish]

I always felt a turntable fiddle yard would be a best for minories rather than a traverser (no handling loco from 1 end to the other), but then width becomes an issue unless you have tracks leaving scene at an angle...which kinda defeats the point of the minories 'S' throat as it all ends up on a curve instead.

[Pacific231G]

Well, I suppose I meant that one should take inspiration from it, although if I were to use it I would use the reduced version. If you compare the Bastille plan with the Minories plan, you will see that Minories has reverse curves because the layout in Minories is straight, whereas Bastille is curved. So you could emulate Bastille by eliminating that final curve leading to the traverser fiddle yard.

 

 

Hi Jane

Bastille is certainly a good source of inspiration.

Designing an angled approach with no reverses is fairly straightforward if you simply want to connect each platform to both of the main lines.

 

For the equivalent of Minories the angle is double the crossing angle of the turnouts you're using which I think would be 24^o for Peco Streamline.

 

The challenge with Bastille,as an increasingly busy commuter station  was to redesign the approach to enable simultaneous arrivals and departures between both main lines and any two platforms in an abnormally short space. That meant using very short points ( about 1:7.5)  which in turn meant that trains couldn't be subject to any reverse curves such as a normal crossover.

.

This was the final version of the approach- based on a 1950s SNCF plan and checked against photos. I drew this up using Peco large radius points which are similar in length to the off-the-shelf turnouts used by SNCF. They achieved the whole thing in the equivalent length of eight turnouts which was an amazing piece of design.

 

 

My reduced four platform version of Bastille only saved the length of a single turnout and is seven long. just two more than the minimum of five required to connect four platforms to both sides of a double track mainline if you don't need every parallel route.

 

For a more intense commuter operation you can have parallel moves between all three of Minories' platforms by adding a direct connection between platform three and the the up (inbound) main but with no reverse curves using an angled approach you lose a bit more than the length of a turnout from platform three

 

What's really frustrating about Bastille is that the original design records seem to be lost including those that appeared briefly in SNCF's film made just after it closed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwn8DzI0rpU

 

The original passenger terminus was just an arrival and departure platform either side of the main train shed with four tracks between them. The narrower and nastier (in terms of finish) second shed used after about 1879 for platform one and its loco release was built for something else. It may have just been a carriage shed but typical terminus design in the mid 1850s suggests a goods depot of some kind and if so I'd love to get hold of a track plan for that. 

Edited September 18, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Pacific231G]

Sure, but in this is designed for a specific room size of 4m width.

 

Phil

For my own possible layout, which will normally need to fit in a 4m long room, I am looking to be able to extend it when possible so probably would go for parallel lines at each end. I'm also looking at another plan that would allow for longer trains but that wouldn't be a Minories derivative so probably off-topic here. Within the four metre constraint I agree with Joseph that your latest design is excellent.  

Edited September 18, 2017 by Pacific231G