Theory of General Minories

[Pacific231G]

On 09/04/2023 at 05:12, Siberian Snooper said:

Trains off the Southern, sometimes changed locos at Oxford, especially if coming via Basingstoke and using the west curve, avoiding Reading altogether.

 

 

Indeed and there were Bulleid Pacifics to watch slipping at Oxford for some time after the hated (by us) Hymeks had displaced the Halls and Castles. I think it was about 50/50 for interegional trains using the west curve and changing locos at Oxford against those that reversed and changed locos at Reading. ISTR that the Pines Express (which was often absurdly late) and the Summer Saturday Only "holiday" workings generally avoided Reading.

One of my own regular 'steam experience' jaunts was to travel from Oxford to Reading West on one or other of such trains , then get the trolleybus to Reading General before returning to Oxford on the next steam hauled express (or semi-fast) from Paddington. I think by then the stoppers were DMUs.

 

This is getting very OT for Minories so I'd better just mention Reading Southern which, though not steam operated in my time, was a wonderfully compact terminus with many of the attributes of a  Minories (though with four rather than three platforms) Being Southern it had a very different and perhaps more intimate atmosphere than ex GWR stations  of similar size. Technically I suppose it was something of an outer commuter terminus (though a lot of its trains went to Surrey rather than Waterloo). 

Edited April 14, 2023 by Pacific231G

[dseagull]

Does anyone happen to have the basic Minories plan in XtrkCad format? Looking for 00 ideally but can work with anything else. Many thanks

[Chimer]

On 16/06/2023 at 22:14, dseagull said:

Does anyone happen to have the basic Minories plan in XtrkCad format? Looking for 00 ideally but can work with anything else. Many thanks

 

At the risk of opening a 12-page row about what "the basic Minories plan" actually looks like (!), I'll happily send you the XTC file behind this if you pm me your email address.  OO, medium Streamline points, could change that if you like ...

 

Cheers, Chris

[RJS1977]

Wouldn't the loco spur be better coming off the curve by using a LH point, than coming off the short straight with a RH one? The former has two advantages:

 

(a) It eliminates a reverse curve; and 

(b) It allows the top platform to be lengthened.

[Flying Pig]

35 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

Wouldn't the loco spur be better coming off the curve by using a LH point, than coming off the short straight with a RH one?

 

Possibly, but @Chimer has drawn it as CJF did in the first published plan.  Unfortunately he has left out the characteristic reverse curve in the main platforms (which some do not like, but it was in the original).   Note how it alows the bay to turn in much sooner (there is also a slight wiggle in the bay to clear the hinge pillar - more obvious in other editions of the plan).

 

 

Edited June 18, 2023 by Flying Pig

[RJS1977]

The difference is though that CJF's plan does have room for the platform between the siding and platform road - I suspect down to the geometry of that reverse curve in the platforms.

[Guest]

I’m currently looking at creating a variation on Minories for a TT120 layout using Scale Model Scenery laser cut baseboards. I partially laid it out and I think it works fairly well in the ~20cm width of the board. I’m just working out how long I need to make it and whether I have any room to do something interesting (and vaguely prototypical in freight terms) in front of a narrow fiddle yard. 
 

As a child of the 80s I’m more of a modern image guy, but operation of a terminus always interested me with the locomotive bringing one train in taking out the next. 
 

I apologise now if I have committed any heresy in the above paragraphs…

[rhnrhn]

59 minutes ago, Gatesheadgeek said:

I’m currently looking at creating a variation on Minories for a TT120 layout using Scale Model Scenery laser cut baseboards. I partially laid it out and I think it works fairly well in the ~20cm width of the board. I’m just working out how long I need to make it and whether I have any room to do something interesting (and vaguely prototypical in freight terms) in front of a narrow fiddle yard. 
 

As a child of the 80s I’m more of a modern image guy, but operation of a terminus always interested me with the locomotive bringing one train in taking out the next. 
 

I apologise now if I have committed any heresy in the above paragraphs…

 

Have a look here at "Gav's Workbench":

 

https://thrumlington.blogspot.com/search/label/LMS

 

It is a Minories layout with some additional sidings at the station end and a freight yard in front of the fiddle yard.

 

It is built on 3 boards each 1065mm long by 305mm wide in 4mm (OO) Scale which would be about 670mm by 190mm in TT120 / 2.5mm Scale (665,625mm by 190,625mm to be precise) - which looks like it would work with your 20cm board width. 

 

Of course a lot depends on how long the trains are that you are planning to run....

 

Edited June 18, 2023 by rhnrhn

[Guest]

Great thanks. It’s a bit moot at the moment with the limited locomotives available, but in the short term I guess there’s always an option for a turning loop or turntable “nearby” to turn Flying Scotsman. Hornby haven’t put couplings on the front of the current steam locomotives so it’s hard to run the layout as a heritage railway! 

[RJS1977]

1 hour ago, Gatesheadgeek said:

I’m currently looking at creating a variation on Minories for a TT120 layout using Scale Model Scenery laser cut baseboards. I partially laid it out and I think it works fairly well in the ~20cm width of the board. I’m just working out how long I need to make it and whether I have any room to do something interesting (and vaguely prototypical in freight terms) in front of a narrow fiddle yard. 
 

As a child of the 80s I’m more of a modern image guy, but operation of a terminus always interested me with the locomotive bringing one train in taking out the next. 
 

I apologise now if I have committed any heresy in the above paragraphs…

 

If the platform and fiddle yard roads cross baseboard joins at 90 degrees, you can always slip extra sections in later if you want to run longer trains.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

If the platform and fiddle yard roads cross baseboard joins at 90 degrees, you can always slip extra sections in later if you want to run longer trains.

That’s my thought. Some careful planning will allow future expansion. 2m or so is easily accommodated, 3m gets trickier. An L-shaped layout would be easier to fit, but a 90 deg bend at approx 400mm radius over ~200mm wide boards will be a little trickier to sort until it can be left up. Each 1100mm baseboard module is designed to fit into shallow/long 77L plastic boxes designed for wrapping paper etc so can be easily stored. If done properly, even just the platform module on its own could be operated as a standalone shunting layout.

[RobinofLoxley]

2 hours ago, Gatesheadgeek said:

I’m currently looking at creating a variation on Minories for a TT120 layout using Scale Model Scenery laser cut baseboards. I partially laid it out and I think it works fairly well in the ~20cm width of the board. I’m just working out how long I need to make it and whether I have any room to do something interesting (and vaguely prototypical in freight terms) in front of a narrow fiddle yard. 
 

As a child of the 80s I’m more of a modern image guy, but operation of a terminus always interested me with the locomotive bringing one train in taking out the next. 
 

I apologise now if I have committed any heresy in the above paragraphs…

In case you hadn't noticed there was a bit of a thread in the scale specific section -2.5mm, some waffle about 'majories'

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, RobinofLoxley said:

In case you hadn't noticed there was a bit of a thread in the scale specific section -2.5mm, some waffle about 'majories'

Ok thanks I’ll take a look

[t-b-g]

Having mentioned my take on Minories a while back, with my truncated version with 5 points, some progress has been made and as the thread has come to life again, it seemed a good place to show what has happened so far. All the track is down and I am just finishing off the platforms. The main station building is under way too.

What was the loco spur on the original but is a loading dock on mine extends behind the rear platform, which will have a fence along the back edge to separate the loading facilities from the passenger station.

[Pacific231G]

8 hours ago, Gatesheadgeek said:

I’m currently looking at creating a variation on Minories for a TT120 layout using Scale Model Scenery laser cut baseboards. I partially laid it out and I think it works fairly well in the ~20cm width of the board. I’m just working out how long I need to make it and whether I have any room to do something interesting (and vaguely prototypical in freight terms) in front of a narrow fiddle yard. 
 

As a child of the 80s I’m more of a modern image guy, but operation of a terminus always interested me with the locomotive bringing one train in taking out the next. 
 

I apologise now if I have committed any heresy in the above paragraphs…

Don't worry about heresy: Minories is not a religious cult (even if it seems that way sometimes!)

Cyril Freezer's original published plan was in fact designed for TT as a five foot folding layout- it was published in Railway Modeller the month after the launch of Tri-ang's TT3- but he later declared- in one of his "modern image" articles in the 1960s or 70s   that it was probably better suited to diesel loco haulage than steam. The original plan was also designed to be extended (which he recommended so all three platform tracks ended at right angles to the board end to facilitate that.

 

As for freight, the original article included a plan for a version with a two road goods shed in front of the train shed- accessed by a rather awkward zig-zag from platform 3.

Cyril Freezer's later versions- which were generally eight feet rather than the original  all used kickback goods sidings. This also avoided the rather awkward empty wedge in front of the approach pointwork that you get using Minories with rectangular baseboards. 

These sidings could certainly be extended to hide the fiddle yard as in Gavin Thrumm's  Great Moor Street.  The only comment I'd make about that is that the "turnover" type busy suburban operation  Cyril Freezer originally envisaged where a loco arriving with one train takes out a subsequent one will make the fiddle yard as busy as the terminus so - if this is a home layout operated from the front- hiding it behind goods warehouses etc.might be a bit awkward . Unfortunately, most of the photos and plans of Minories based layouts in this thread disappeared a couple of years ago.  Most layouts built following the Minories plan seem to end up handling four coach trains which is a bit short but not if you use Cyril Freezer's idea of an overbridge across the centre so you never quite see how short the trains really are. 

You can see this in EM version of Minories that Tom Cunnington and others at the MRC built in 2006 to mark the plan's 50th 60th anniversary though I think the overbridge is a bit high to really break the layout into two scenes. That was all diesel hauled and could handle a four coach train with a loco.

The fiddle yard was a traverser and both the yard and station operators were kept pretty busy.

 

[Flying Pig]

20 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Cyril Freezer's later versions- which were generally eight feet rather than the original  all used kickback goods sidings. This also avoided the rather awkward empty wedge in front of the approach pointwork that you get using Minories with rectangular baseboards. 

These sidings could certainly be extended to hide the fiddle yard as in Gavin Thrumm's  Great Moor Street. 

 

A better arrangement imo is as below.  The rear siding is extended to form a goods reception springing from an offscene junction and the left hand crossover is reversed.  This allows both longer goods trains standing on the reception road and short off-peak trains in the bay to be run round.  

 

I would put a goods platform between the sidings and have them disappearing into the end of a warehouse forming a scenic break.

 

 

[RJS1977]

Just watched this video about Tower Gateway station, which almost had a more familiar name instead....

 

 

[Lacathedrale]

Is your layout even a real Minories if it doesn't have cable haulage?

[KeithMacdonald]

On 18/06/2023 at 11:14, Chimer said:

At the risk of opening a 12-page row

 

On 18/06/2023 at 13:12, RJS1977 said:

Wouldn't the loco spur be better coming off the curve by using a LH point, than coming off the short straight with a RH one?

 

Note for RMWeb historians:

This is when the next 12 pages kick-started the old arguments -

"Which is the real original Minories"

and "

Why it was useless"

[Pacific231G]

On 19/06/2023 at 21:55, Flying Pig said:

 

A better arrangement imo is as below.  The rear siding is extended to form a goods reception springing from an offscene junction and the left hand crossover is reversed.  This allows both longer goods trains standing on the reception road and short off-peak trains in the bay to be run round.  

 

I would put a goods platform between the sidings and have them disappearing into the end of a warehouse forming a scenic break.

 

 

I don't know about better but certanly an interesting altenative. I'd reversed the releasing crossover both to enable a longer goods cut to be run round on the siding/head shunt parallel to platform three  and to provide a space for parcels vans etc at the end of that platform when the rest of it was being used as a release road for goods locos. I've thought of a relief goods road alongside the main line but it seemed lile overkill for such a small yard. Geoff Ashdown used a separated yard and goods line (the junction supposedly being at the next box) on Tower Pier (whose passenger side is operationally almost identical to Minories) employing the useful device of it being the final yard for a docks line (to St Katherine dock) so avoiding the space requirement of a goods warehouse or loading area.

Tower Pier redrawn from EM using Streamline medium radius in the same space

Though I prefer to integrate the goods operation, Geoff's plan does allow the goods sidings to be at a higher level.

I still can't get my head round quite how Geoff Ashdown managed to make a three metre long (including the cassette based fiddle yard) by fifty centimetre wide layout include so much and still look convincing. For loco hauled trains,  the platforms can only handle a three coach suburban or a quad-art set but I think judicious use of scenic breaks (overall roof, overbridge, tunnel mouths) was probably the secret.  

 

Edited June 24, 2023 by Pacific231G

[Guest]

On 19/06/2023 at 21:55, Flying Pig said:

 

A better arrangement imo is as below.  The rear siding is extended to form a goods reception springing from an offscene junction and the left hand crossover is reversed.  This allows both longer goods trains standing on the reception road and short off-peak trains in the bay to be run round.  

 

I would put a goods platform between the sidings and have them disappearing into the end of a warehouse forming a scenic break.

 

 

 

Thanks for this. I received some TT120 track last week and tried it out with a Minories style layout and it’s a tight fit but does work, albeit without the width to accommodate a run round loop. The track spacing and geometry adds to the constraints. The operational limitations of what can be achieved suggest a re-think is needed before I invest too much. There’s no real rush at the moment.

[James Harrison]

On 18/06/2023 at 21:53, t-b-g said:

Having mentioned my take on Minories a while back, with my truncated version with 5 points, some progress has been made and as the thread has come to life again, it seemed a good place to show what has happened so far. All the track is down and I am just finishing off the platforms. The main station building is under way too.

What was the loco spur on the original but is a loading dock on mine extends behind the rear platform, which will have a fence along the back edge to separate the loading facilities from the passenger station.

 

Do you have a thread for your layout, @t-b-g?  I'd be interested to follow progress.  (From what you've previously mentioned it sounds like it has much the same concept as my own project).

[roythebus1]

I've never known such a basic layout plan generate so much interest over such a long period of time. 

 

As I mentioned in a much earlier comment, I spoke with Cyril Freezer about this layout in the 1980s  and asked him about the kick-back loco spur. As he based this layout on Moorgate Widened lines , as rebuilt in 1967 this had a loco spur from each platform. These spurs were accessible directly from the 2 platforms to save time and movements. Cyril said he done his as a kick-back to make working such a layout a bit more interesting. The original Moorgate Widened Lines station also had 2 separate loco spurs, one for the Eastern and one for the Midland. another terminal platform had a loco spur for the Metropolitan electric locos.

 

In a later conversation with Cyril, he complimented me on my Tidmouth Junction "Thomas" themed layout which done the rounds in the late 1980s.  It had a continuous run, a separate branch, a main line terminus, loco shed with turntable, a goods yard AND fiddle loops, all in a space of 11x4, built in a short time frame of 3 weeks! It could also be run as a proper railway. He admitted it was something he tried to achieve but never quite managed it. some kind soul on here posted the link to the RM article on Tidmouth Junction a while ago.

 

I tried building several of Cyril's ideas over the years, none of them quite worked out!

[t-b-g]

6 hours ago, James Harrison said:

 

Do you have a thread for your layout, @t-b-g?  I'd be interested to follow progress.  (From what you've previously mentioned it sounds like it has much the same concept as my own project).

 

Hello James.

 

I haven't started a thread for it. I have started one or two threads on projects over the years but then things don't get finished, or I get distracted by something else I am working on and progress becomes so slow that I am almost too embarrassed to post anything.

 

I started a thread on my model of Valour several years ago and the loco still isn't finished, with the original plan to convert a Ks B2, which became a scratchbuild, which became a part kit build when etches became available for big chunks of the loco. It just needs painting now but I have been plucking up the nerve to have a go for a couple of years now. I quite like it in shiny metal anyway!

 

I am a bit wary of posting details of what I do on RMWeb nowadays. There seem to be one or two folk around who see the posting of any photos as an invitation for them to be critical. I am usually more than aware of any shortcomings in my work and I don't need or want "helpful" criticism drawing attention to any faults to the rest of the RMWeb community. I am my own harshest critic by some distance but I just find it annoying when others want to join in with spotting faults, no matter how well meaning they are.

 

So I limit it to the odd photo here or there, usually of something under construction, which seems less likely to garner a "This is what you got wrong" comment. I spent a happy few hours today working on a canopy covering some seats for the island platform, based on Langwith Junction/Shirebrook North and a loco coaling stage based on one at Tuxford. Neither are exact copies but are based on what can be gleaned from the photos on the web and in books.

 

The layout will be seen in public as a "work in progress" at EXPO EM at Wakefield in August (not long left now!) if anybody wants to see where I am up to.  

 

 

[James Harrison]

59 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Hello James.

 

I haven't started a thread for it. I have started one or two threads on projects over the years but then things don't get finished, or I get distracted by something else I am working on and progress becomes so slow that I am almost too embarrassed to post anything.

 

I started a thread on my model of Valour several years ago and the loco still isn't finished, with the original plan to convert a Ks B2, which became a scratchbuild, which became a part kit build when etches became available for big chunks of the loco. It just needs painting now but I have been plucking up the nerve to have a go for a couple of years now. I quite like it in shiny metal anyway!

 

I am a bit wary of posting details of what I do on RMWeb nowadays. There seem to be one or two folk around who see the posting of any photos as an invitation for them to be critical. I am usually more than aware of any shortcomings in my work and I don't need or want "helpful" criticism drawing attention to any faults to the rest of the RMWeb community. I am my own harshest critic by some distance but I just find it annoying when others want to join in with spotting faults, no matter how well meaning they are.

 

So I limit it to the odd photo here or there, usually of something under construction, which seems less likely to garner a "This is what you got wrong" comment. I spent a happy few hours today working on a canopy covering some seats for the island platform, based on Langwith Junction/Shirebrook North and a loco coaling stage based on one at Tuxford. Neither are exact copies but are based on what can be gleaned from the photos on the web and in books.

 

The layout will be seen in public as a "work in progress" at EXPO EM at Wakefield in August (not long left now!) if anybody wants to see where I am up to.  

 

 

 

Thank you for your reply, t-b-g - I understand (and sympathise) with your point of view.  If you ever happen to bring it down to the West Midlands area any time I'll be sure to come have a look.