Theory of General Minories

[melmoth]

9 minutes ago, calcifer said:

How should Minories be adjusted for right-hand running?

 

Does it have to be? The principle of Minories is that trains arriving from either of the two approach roads can run into any of the three platform roads, and obviously depart vice versa. Right-hand running should not make any difference.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

29 minutes ago, calcifer said:

How should Minories be adjusted for right-hand running?

Do a mirror image, top to bottom (or left to right).

 

17 minutes ago, melmoth said:

 

Does it have to be? The principle of Minories is that trains arriving from either of the two approach roads can run into any of the three platform roads, and obviously depart vice versa. Right-hand running should not make any difference.

The loco spur is on the exit side, allowing the pilot to shunt behind a departing train, without blocking the incoming road any more than is absolutely necessary.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Jeremy C

[calcifer]

32 minutes ago, melmoth said:

 

Does it have to be? The principle of Minories is that trains arriving from either of the two approach roads can run into any of the three platform roads, and obviously depart vice versa. Right-hand running should not make any difference.

Isn't the S-curve avoiding geometry in Minories dependent on the turnout's handedness? 

[calcifer]

20 minutes ago, Jeremy C said:

Do a mirror image, top to bottom (or left to right).

 

The loco spur is on the exit side, allowing the pilot to shunt behind a departing train, without blocking the incoming road any more than is absolutely necessary.

Thank you!

[Compound2632]

51 minutes ago, calcifer said:

How should Minories be adjusted for right-hand running?

 

Mirror-image the whole layout.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

6 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Why the r-t-r makers don’t serve-up a Beyer Peacock 4-4-0T beats me because they were used by multiple companies around London, then many were sold to industrial and LR users in the early 1900s at electrification.

I recall some discussion about this on some other forum. Aparently there is very little room for the front bogie to swing from side to side, severly limiting the curves a model could go round. Here is a photo of the prototype (from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Metropolitan_Tank_engine.jpg):

 

I don't know how the IKB kit overcame this, but you can see from t-b-g's lovely photograph that the bogie wheels are fully below the cylinder and frame.

[Nearholmer]

Interesting point.

 

I remembered that there is a whole thread about these locos, which began as a bit of wishlisting

 

To me, it seems likely that the bogie swing challenge could be solved with a bit of ingenuity. One possibility that occurs to me is to make the rear bogie axle “fixed”, but with side-play if room permits, and the front one as a pony truck.

[t-b-g]

5 minutes ago, Jeremy C said:

I recall some discussion about this on some other forum. Aparently there is very little room for the front bogie to swing from side to side, severly limiting the curves a model could go round. Here is a photo of the prototype (from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Metropolitan_Tank_engine.jpg):

 

I don't know how the IKB kit overcame this, but you can see from t-b-g's lovely photograph that the bogie wheels are fully below the cylinder and frame.

 

The model was built a few years ago and I can't remember for certain how it all worked. I do remember that it involved a subframe for the four driving wheels, so the weight was carried on a pivot about half way between the driving wheels and the bogie pivot. I think I moved the bogie pivot from the bogie centre to between the rear bogie wheels, so the rear wheels had very little movement. There was nothing to get in the way of the front bogie wheels having a bit of sideways movement.

[33C]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

The model was built a few years ago and I can't remember for certain how it all worked. I do remember that it involved a subframe for the four driving wheels, so the weight was carried on a pivot about half way between the driving wheels and the bogie pivot. I think I moved the bogie pivot from the bogie centre to between the rear bogie wheels, so the rear wheels had very little movement. There was nothing to get in the way of the front bogie wheels having a bit of sideways movement.

I made an example from a Hornby Holden 101 tank. The build is covered in the "Show us your pugbashes, Nellieboshes etc" thread. It may be useful. (Page 110)

Edited December 15, 2022 by 33C
added detail

[t-b-g]

1 minute ago, 33C said:

I made an example from a Hornby Holden 101 tank. The build is covered in the "Show us your pugbashes, Nellieboshes etc" thread. It may be useful.

 

That sounds an interesting project. I haven't really looked at that thread but perhaps I should.

 

The 4-4-0T was finished 3 or 4 years ago and has been in service ever since, with no problems.

[33C]

2 hours ago, 33C said:

I made an example from a Hornby Holden 101 tank. The build is covered in the "Show us your pugbashes, Nellieboshes etc" thread. It may be useful.

Go further back in that thread and you will find my N.L.R. 4-4-0T, made from the same loco type. (page 105)

Edited December 15, 2022 by 33C
added detail

[t-b-g]

Just now, 33C said:

Go further back in that thread and you will find my N.L.R. 4-4-0T, made from the same loco type.

 

I have one of those too, done from the Peter K kit.

[melmoth]

1 hour ago, Jeremy C said:

The loco spur is on the exit side, allowing the pilot to shunt behind a departing train, without blocking the incoming road any more than is absolutely necessary.

 

Yes, but that assumes that you have an 'arrival' and a 'departure' side. The whole point of MInories, as I see it, is that trains can arrive and depart from any of the three platforms to either of the two (presumably bi-directional) lines. Or, to put it another way, imagine Minories as the terminus of two converging single track routes. Trains will arrive and depart on both lines according to their imagined destinations

[Compound2632]

30 minutes ago, Jeremy C said:

I recall some discussion about this on some other forum. Aparently there is very little room for the front bogie to swing from side to side, severly limiting the curves a model could go round.

 

Ironic, since the point of the design was to cope with the tight curves on the Met.

 

25 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

To me, it seems likely that the bogie swing challenge could be solved with a bit of ingenuity. One possibility that occurs to me is to make the rear bogie axle “fixed”, but with side-play if room permits, and the front one as a pony truck.

 

in 00, there will be a bit more room because of the under-scale width across the wheel faces. 

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, melmoth said:

Yes, but that assumes that you have an 'arrival' and a 'departure' side. The whole point of MInories, as I see it, is that trains can arrive and depart from any of the three platforms to either of the two (presumably bi-directional) lines. Or, to put it another way, imagine Minories as the terminus of two converging single track routes. Trains will arrive and depart on both lines according to their imagined destinations

 

Bi-directional approach lines might suit a modernised Minories but the classic design takes it for granted that the double track approach is laid out with uni-directional up and down lines. It's why the crossovers are in the order they are, to reduce by one the number of facing point locks needed.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

6 minutes ago, melmoth said:

 

Yes, but that assumes that you have an 'arrival' and a 'departure' side. The whole point of MInories, as I see it, is that trains can arrive and depart from any of the three platforms to either of the two (presumably bi-directional) lines. Or, to put it another way, imagine Minories as the terminus of two converging single track routes. Trains will arrive and depart on both lines according to their imagined destinations

I was referring to the approach roads. If you are shunting within the clearing point, you cannot accept an incoming train (or you cannot shunt if an incoming train has already been accepted). There are far less restrictions with shunting on the departure road, which you basically only need to keep clear when a train wants to leave.

 

Lots of modellers have little interest in prototypical signalling and would think nothing of letting a light engine into platform 2, say, then as soon as it is clear have an arriving train run into platform 3. People are free to operate their models as they wish, for enjoyment and relaxation, and I don't in any way want to suggest that Minories has to be operated in a particular manner.

 

But one of the great things about Minories is that, for people who are interested in signalling, it is possible to operate an intensive service and do it in a protypical manner, but the layout as designed is set up for left hand running, and would need to be mirror-imaged for right hand running. On the other hand, right hand running implies some other country with different operating rules, so who knows what the track plan should look like.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

30 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

in 00, there will be a bit more room because of the under-scale width across the wheel faces.

Yes, that's a good point. The discussion I was looking at was probably for 7 mm scale.

[Nearholmer]

I've seen a tinplate one, built round something like a Hornby No.2 mechanism, and it was instantly recognisable for what it was, although IIRC the boiler was a bit fat to accomodate the spring unwinding. The bogie I dont recall, but the usual tricks in tinplate are to raise the cylinders artificialy high and use under-sized wheels. People who value fidelity over character would never approve.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Flying Pig]

23 hours ago, simon b said:

The more I look at that the more I like it, would stand out from the crowd. 

 

But to do it justice I would take it away from the minories concept and make it as a standalone design. 

Move the signal box to the rear of the layout and turn the kick back into a domestic coal yard, platform 3 wouldn't exist the track just being the headshunt for said coal yard.

 

Perhaps it was a former through station with the tunnel now blocked off under the station buildings, like Liverpool street platforms 1 and 2 maybe.

 

Recall that I posted in response to @meatloaf's question about fitting a diesel era Minories into 9 feet.  I would leave the signalbox at the front as the scenic break, having pruned the right hand foot or so of the layout. The Bentley MRG had a layout called Gladstone Road which was similar in plan and concept.

 

BTW if you want to see Minories as a truncated through station (or even one end of an active through station) then you really need to look at it in a mirror.  The bay needs to be on the trailing side (even if you view it as a siding).  You end up with something like @t-b-g's plan from a few posts back.

[D-A-T]

@meatloaf

If you need to save a few inches, and don’t mind “straightening” the approach trackwork, then replace the two inner turnouts with a single slip. It will save 6 to 8 inches which can be added to the platform lengths. 

[Lacathedrale]

2 hours ago, D-A-T said:

@meatloaf

If you need to save a few inches, and don’t mind “straightening” the approach trackwork, then replace the two inner turnouts with a single slip. It will save 6 to 8 inches which can be added to the platform lengths. 

 

I'm still building my Minories++ throat, but have done exactly that:

 

 

The Hornby/Hattons 3w coaches go through the slip without complaint. 

 

i specifically wanted to add a few extra features to the basic layout, which is why there's a double-slip on the right/inside, and an additional crossover near the platforms, which has basically eaten back the space gained - but so far, I'm happy. 

Edited December 16, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[D-A-T]

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

 

I'm still building my Minories++ throat, but have done exactly that:

 

 

The Hornby/Hattons 3w coaches go through the slip without complaint. 

 

i specifically wanted to add a few extra features to the basic layout, which is why there's a double-slip on the right/inside, and an additional crossover near the platforms, which has basically eaten back the space gained - but so far, I'm happy. 

@meatloaf

Lacathedrale I was thinking along these lines. Drawn at 72 inches x 12 inches. I think this could be ‘jiggled’ a bit to gain a few more inches by reducing the fiddleyard from 36 inches to 33 or 34 inches and adding the gained inches to the platform lengths. 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, D-A-T said:

@meatloaf

Lacathedrale I was thinking along these lines. Drawn at 72 inches x 12 inches. I think this could be ‘jiggled’ a bit to gain a few more inches by reducing the fiddleyard from 36 inches to 33 or 34 inches and adding the gained inches to the platform lengths. 

 

Possibly a bit more real-railway like. I'm reminded of Kingston, where the S-bend in the running lines tells one something of the history of the station, with the now gone back road, equivalent to the loco spur here, being on the original terminus alignment.

 

https://maps.nls.uk/view/103313770

Edited December 16, 2022 by Compound2632

[RobinofLoxley]

2 hours ago, D-A-T said:

@meatloaf

Lacathedrale I was thinking along these lines. Drawn at 72 inches x 12 inches. I think this could be ‘jiggled’ a bit to gain a few more inches by reducing the fiddleyard from 36 inches to 33 or 34 inches and adding the gained inches to the platform lengths. 

In this specific case the kickback turnout and the straight before it can be interchanged so that the lower line, which is rather short, gets extra working length.

[RJS1977]

On 15/12/2022 at 18:22, t-b-g said:

 

We do have a couple of these running on it. I built this one from an IKB kit, slightly altered to be a proper District Railway one. It was photographed on a certain well known EM gauge layout.

 

 

 

 

Of course, had it been in Metropolitan colours rather than District, it could well have found its way to Buckingham via Quainton Road.