Theory of General Minories

[Clive Mortimore]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Some cracking point building there. Is it a new layout or are these older photos of one done a while ago?

One I abandoned when I realised I could have as much fun running trains using Peco track.  I know it sounds daft as I am model maker  but I spent more time trying to get the K crossings on the slip right as I did laying and wiring up Sheffield Exchange Mk1.

 

Maybe one day I will give it another bash, possibly in EM. I have a pile of ER 25kv units which I don't run so converting them to EM and having a layout just for them is in the idea box.

[Clive Mortimore]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That's more or less what I was thinking of, though in my mind the scissors would be symmetrical, and so shorter. A snag with this tour-de-force of track-building is that there appears to be inadequate clearance between the facing crossover (arrivals line-to-platform 1) and the loco spur line. 

Looking at it, it does look a tad tight. I never envisaged driving a train into platform 3 (as it was going to be) and having one leaving or accessing the loco siding. As a sole operator I find trying to concentrate on two trains (or locos) normally ends up in a disaster. 

 

Should I have a second go as mentioned in my reply to Tony, I will take that into account.

[St Enodoc]

9 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I just can't see the logic of building lots of complex points when simpler ones would fit in the same space

 

6 hours ago, Regularity said:

There are very few arrangements where, given the space, only ordinary turnouts cannot be used

 

I agree totally - but if there isn't the space then that is the perfect reason/excuse!

[St Enodoc]

5 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I spent more time trying to get the K crossings on the slip right

I share your pain.

 

5 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I never envisaged driving a train into platform 3 (as it was going to be) and having one leaving or accessing the loco siding.

You could arrange the interlocking to prevent that.

[KeithMacdonald]

36 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

I share your pain.

 

You could arrange the interlocking to prevent that.

 

And thus, General Minories becomes General Maximus Painus

[Pacific231G]

On 23/06/2022 at 09:33, Harlequin said:

The trouble with using a Peco Streamline slip in the throat is that it has a nominal 2ft radius and so both the line that it's in and the parallel line take quite a sharp deviation where you don't really want it. It can also cause nasty reverse curves depending on where it's placed w.r.t other pointwork and the desired routes through it.

 

You could use another manufacturer's slip with larger radius turning routes or build your own of course, but larger radii means longer formations and then you're getting away from the whole ethos of Minories.

 

Agreed

I have a Peco Streamline slip in my collection of 2nd hand track (used for trying out designs) and the result was exactly as you say. I also tried it with an SMP slip and it was no better.  The other thing was that, when laid this way,  the throat simply became too short and lost most of the effect of trains rattling over the approach pointwork between platforms and mains. I found this to also be true at full size with the very short approach pointwork at Lyon St. Paul where the usual minimum of two crossovers is replaced by a scissors crossover (actually in a tunnel) .  If trains simply leave the platform and almost immediately disappear it seems rather unsatisfying, at least to me, whereas I find the minimum four point long approach of Minories and other plans with a separate facing and trailing crossover just long enough. 

 

[RobinofLoxley]

20 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Agreed

I have a Peco Streamline slip in my collection of 2nd hand track (used for trying out designs) and the result was exactly as you say. I also tried it with an SMP slip and it was no better.  The other thing was that, when laid this way,  the throat simply became too short and lost most of the effect of trains rattling over the approach pointwork between platforms and mains. I found this to also be true at full size with the very short approach pointwork at Lyon St. Paul where the usual minimum of two crossovers is replaced by a scissors crossover (actually in a tunnel) .  If trains simply leave the platform and almost immediately disappear it seems rather unsatisfying, at least to me, whereas I find the minimum four point long approach of Minories and other plans with a separate facing and trailing crossover just long enough. 

 

I agree. I have built a station approach without slips because I preferred the length and I didn't need to compromise.

[t-b-g]

I would agree with he comments about the length of the station throat. There is a balance to the design that works really well with, say, a 4ft board with platforms, a 4ft board with the station throat and a 4ft traverser or suchlike for a fiddle yard.

 

Shortening the station throat can upset that balance a bit.

 

Even in my "mini" version with just one crossover, I have still kept the 4ft platform and the 4ft throat. I have just used really long points to improve the look of trains snaking from one track to the next and given enough length for any shunting from one line to another to have at least part of the stock, or a whole loco, to go beyond a signal and reverse, without it all disappearing into the fiddle yard. It just allows the throat to "breathe" a little and to have a few inches of track between the front of a train and the first point, so the loco can be not jammed right up to the starting signals.

 

If I find that it isn't very satisfactory to operate with just the one crossover, I have an option to add an extra board between the station and the fiddle yard, with the missing crossover and perhaps a small loco servicing facility and maybe even a small turntable. The layout was always planned with potential development in mind. At some point a junction will be inserted to allow a smaller "twig off the branch" station to go in front of the fiddle yard too.

 

 

[Regularity]

If you ever look at a map of Kings Cross, the station throat isn’t surprisingly short, partly because prototype trains tend to be longer than on model railways.

Then there is the fact that some of the sorting out of arrivals and departures is dealt with before Gasworks tunnels, and this is typical of many main line approaches: at Euston, the “suburban lines” are still in the middle of the station, with main line platforms either side. This is largely sorted out at Chalk Farm, of course, but also further out - sometimes quite a bit further out, with “semi-fast” passenger trains running south of say Milton Keynes being moved over to the up mainline as soon as possible, so long as there is a suitable path.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Regularity said:

If you ever look at a map of Kings Cross, the station throat isn’t surprisingly short, partly because prototype trains tend to be longer than on model railways.

Then there is the fact that some of the sorting out of arrivals and departures is dealt with before Gasworks tunnels, and this is typical of many main line approaches: at Euston, the “suburban lines” are still in the middle of the station, with main line platforms either side. This is largely sorted out at Chalk Farm, of course, but also further out - sometimes quite a bit further out, with “semi-fast” passenger trains running south of say Milton Keynes being moved over to the up mainline as soon as possible, so long as there is a suitable path.

Actually the station throat at KX is noticeably short - 20/21 chains from the stop blocks to the mouth of Gasworks Tunnel - a tad over half the equivalent length at Paddington which is 39 chains or the 40 chains at Euston.

[Regularity]

10 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Actually the station throat at KX is noticeably short - 20/21 chains from the stop blocks to the mouth of Gasworks Tunnel - a tad over half the equivalent length at Paddington which is 39 chains or the 40 chains at Euston.

Hence, I surmise, the “York Road” platform for the widened lines?

[t-b-g]

I know one or two people who have started models of Kings Cross as it is surprisingly short. The big problems are the width and the fact that so much of it is covered over and difficult to view from the outside.

 

I seriously considered modelling Nottingham Victoria one time, when a 40ft long shed became available. From tunnel to tunnel needed about 26ft in 4mm scale. It should fit easily! Yet it would have had to be about 9ft wide to include the station building and around 75% would be under the overall roof. So it would be fascinating to operate but you would hardly see the trains at all.

 

It is one of the reasons why I have nearly always modelled fictional locations. I have never found any real place that was able to be built in a sensible space, interesting operationally with a good variety of stock and visually appealing.

 

 

[Compound2632]

41 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I know one or two people who have started models of Kings Cross as it is surprisingly short. The big problems are the width and the fact that so much of it is covered over and difficult to view from the outside.

 

On @Edwardian's Castle Aching topic there was once posted a photograph of the interior of a Victorian drill hall that had pretty much the right dimensions and roof shape for a model of St Pancras in 7¼" gauge. 

 

That would solve the problem of inaccessibility of the covered section. Unfortunately modelling the approaches would have required the demolition of several neighbouring properties and a scale model of the Midland Grand Hotel would undoubtedly need planning permission.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Compound2632

[Flying Pig]

35 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I seriously considered modelling Nottingham Victoria one time, when a 40ft long shed became available. From tunnel to tunnel needed about 26ft in 4mm scale. It should fit easily! Yet it would have had to be about 9ft wide to include the station building and around 75% would be under the overall roof. So it would be fascinating to operate but you would hardly see the trains at all.

 

 

 

Why not just build one end and enough of the overall roof to imply the rest of the station and balance the scene?  You'd get a great deal of the action, as much as a trainwatcher on the platform end could see, in a lot less length with a more concentrated visual composition.  I don't really get the desire to build acres of platforms - they don't do anything in model form and just look static where there should be movement.  Unlike the approaches and throat where our trains can move.

[john new]

48 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I know one or two people who have started models of Kings Cross as it is surprisingly short. The big problems are the width and the fact that so much of it is covered over and difficult to view from the outside.

 

I seriously considered modelling Nottingham Victoria one time, when a 40ft long shed became available. From tunnel to tunnel needed about 26ft in 4mm scale. It should fit easily! Yet it would have had to be about 9ft wide to include the station building and around 75% would be under the overall roof. So it would be fascinating to operate but you would hardly see the trains at all.

 

It is one of the reasons why I have nearly always modelled fictional locations. I have never found any real place that was able to be built in a sensible space, interesting operationally with a good variety of stock and visually appealing.

 

 

It is the problem with Lime Street as an example, stonkingly good modelling but not a great exhibition layout for me. I did see it at Warley and as an exhibitor could view when there weren’t the crowds of people around it. As I said in sentence one, stunning modelling and way out of my own league, but one for the operators to enjoy not necessarily the viewing public as most of it is hidden by the train shed.

[t-b-g]

Just now, john new said:

It is the problem with Lime Street as an example, stonkingly good modelling but not a great exhibition layout for me. I did see it at Warley and as an exhibitor could view when there weren’t the crowds of people around it. As I said in sentence one, stunning modelling and way out of my own league, but one for the operators to enjoy not necessarily the viewing public as most of it is hidden by the train shed.

 

I was lucky enough to be invited to visit Lime Street in its home setting. I went with a couple of friends. We spent a few hours there, able to get up close to the layout and really examine and appreciate some of the superb modelling in there that you just can't see from behind an exhibition barrier. We didn't run a single train yet I enjoyed seeing it like that more than I do watching it at shows. I did say to John that it is a layout that has as much impact as a static exhibit as it does an operational layout.  

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Regularity said:

Hence, I surmise, the “York Road” platform for the widened lines?

The York Road platform (an excellent spot for trainspotting - but that's showing my age)  was more to do with getting access to the Widened Lines than anything else.  But even then it was a sharp curve although not as bad operationally as the Hotel Curve was for Down trains

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I did say to John that it is a layout that has as much impact as a static exhibit as it does an operational layout.  

 

i imagine that at present he would see that as cold comfort.

[t-b-g]

7 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Why not just build one end and enough of the overall roof to imply the rest of the station and balance the scene?  You'd get a great deal of the action, as much as a trainwatcher on the platform end could see, in a lot less length with a more concentrated visual composition.  I don't really get the desire to build acres of platforms - they don't do anything in model form and just look static where there should be movement.  Unlike the approaches and throat where our trains can move.

 

We wanted a layout that would fit in with the other stations we are building on the system, which really needed to act like a scenic fiddle yard. So lots of loop tracks and platforms fitted the bill.

 

Building one end would make a poor layout in my view. It would require a scenic section as wide as it is long (about 9ft square) and you would need a fiddle yard each end able to take a loco and a full length train, which would make the layout two thirds fiddle yard and one third scenic, which isn't a ratio that I like. If you make it a continuous run, you would need a huge space as with a smallest radius of, say, 3ft, the largest radius would have to be 11ft. the other problem is that Nottingham Vic. is all about the big "hole in the ground". So if you model the sides, you end up looking down on everything. If you leave a side off, it isn't Nottingham Vic.

 

I know it has been modelled in Australia as I have been shown photos. In that case, the cutting side had slits cut in it that you viewed the layout through, which is a novel approach.

[t-b-g]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

i imagine that at present he would see that as cold comfort.

 

Indeed. It was some time ago, pre Covid, when we visited. Recent events have certainly made such a view seem rather insensitive. I just hope that the missing locos can be recovered.

[Flying Pig]

44 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

Building one end would make a poor layout in my view. It would require a scenic section as wide as it is long (about 9ft square)

 

The north end of Victoria clipped from the NLS site.  About 12' x 5' scenic in 4mmif you take it up to the overall roof.  Three foot radius curves would add six to seven feet (there's no need to maintain platform spacing offscene).  Wibdenshaw, built on a similar though fictitious theme was an effective exhibition layout imo and many exhibition layouts do have a lot of offscene track.

[Clive Mortimore]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I know one or two people who have started models of Kings Cross as it is surprisingly short. The big problems are the width and the fact that so much of it is covered over and difficult to view from the outside.

 

I seriously considered modelling Nottingham Victoria one time, when a 40ft long shed became available. From tunnel to tunnel needed about 26ft in 4mm scale. It should fit easily! Yet it would have had to be about 9ft wide to include the station building and around 75% would be under the overall roof. So it would be fascinating to operate but you would hardly see the trains at all.

 

It is one of the reasons why I have nearly always modelled fictional locations. I have never found any real place that was able to be built in a sensible space, interesting operationally with a good variety of stock and visually appealing.

 

 

Now three people.

 

Working from a large scale OS map I hand drew the track plan to 4mm scale. From Gas Works Tunnel to the front of the train shed it is 8ft 6ins. In that distance it goes from 2ft wide at the tunnel to 8ft 6ins wide from the siding alongside Battlesbridge building to where the track disappears under York Way.

 

The down sides as already mentioned, not much would be visible and working out a fiddle yard where the suburban trains went from one side to the other and crossed the main lines to get to the middle tunnel seemed too much of a challenge. All the ideas I had meant the fiddle yards (second one for the Moorgate trains) would take up more space that Kings Cross, let alone the viewing area. After many years of research and planning I realised my number of active modelling years was on the decline and I possibly would never have the space to make it.

 

My compromise was to use the 1977 remodelling track plan as a basis for Sheffield Exchange Mk2. A move I was please to make as I am enjoying running it and making stock for it.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

The north end of Victoria clipped from the NLS site.  About 12' x 5' scenic in 4mmif you take it up to the overall roof.  Three foot radius curves would add six to seven feet (there's no need to maintain platform spacing offscene).  Wibdenshaw, built on a similar though fictitious theme was an effective exhibition layout imo and many exhibition layouts do have a lot of offscene track.

 

Perhaps I was a bit OTT with the width but I would want to include some of the roads and buildings that make Nottingham Victoria the place that it was. If you are omitting the overall roof and the buildings with the famous clock tower, you have removed 90% of the character of the place anyway.

 

If you think it is practical to have all those tracks, that far apart, curving round to a usable fiddle yard then I wish you good luck but it isn't for me! You would end up with a layout that is 75% fiddle yard (two ends and one side) and 25% scenic (one side). I have seen layouts like that and I always think that they are a poor use of space. 

 

I have been lucky enough to be involved with all sorts of layouts over the years, from tiny foldable branch lines to the EM model of Retford.

 

My experience has taught me that I wouldn't want a layout where anything is ideally 2ft (and 2ft 6ins as a maximum) from where an operator/builder can stand. So I would have a maximum 4ft wide board if I had access to both sides but only 2ft if the board is set up against a wall. The space we had for Nottingham was against a wall so it was a non starter and the space was actually filled by two smaller stations on 2ft wide boards, which are great fun to operate.

 

 

 

[t-b-g]

37 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Now three people.

 

Working from a large scale OS map I hand drew the track plan to 4mm scale. From Gas Works Tunnel to the front of the train shed it is 8ft 6ins. In that distance it goes from 2ft wide at the tunnel to 8ft 6ins wide from the siding alongside Battlesbridge building to where the track disappears under York Way.

 

The down sides as already mentioned, not much would be visible and working out a fiddle yard where the suburban trains went from one side to the other and crossed the main lines to get to the middle tunnel seemed too much of a challenge. All the ideas I had meant the fiddle yards (second one for the Moorgate trains) would take up more space that Kings Cross, let alone the viewing area. After many years of research and planning I realised my number of active modelling years was on the decline and I possibly would never have the space to make it.

 

My compromise was to use the 1977 remodelling track plan as a basis for Sheffield Exchange Mk2. A move I was please to make as I am enjoying running it and making stock for it.

 

That is a good way of going about things. You have a prototypical track plan but none of the restrictions on locos, stock or scenic treatment that modelling a real place impose on you.

[Flying Pig]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

If you think it is practical to have all those tracks, that far apart, curving round to a usable fiddle yard then I wish you good luck but it isn't for me!

 

Not necessary, as I pointed out in my previous post: the tracks could be brought to normal spacing within the first quarter turn, without using less than the minimum radius.  It might also be possible to start merging tracks on the curve to reduce the complexity of the fiddle yard.

 

I understand your dislike of layouts in which offstage space exceeds the modelled area, but they are far from uncommon and arguably the norm for large circuits.