Theory of General Minories

[Nearholmer]

I especially don’t “get” the many home, never to be exhibited, layouts shown in magazines that follow the exhibition trend of a huge FY gobbling-up 50% of the footprint.  At home, it is possible without too much difficulty to hide the FY and have a much larger scenic area, especially given that most people seem to use the FY as a magazine for fixed rakes.

[Nearholmer]

I like the mini-Willesden idea, I can imagine high level lines and linking gradients playing into it all to distract from it being an FY.

 

Some of the more creative layout designers seem to hide their FYs very effectively below or behind scenic sections, using hinge-up boards, removable back-scenes etc. Colm Flanagan is one who has a genius for hiding track in plain sight.

 

All a bit OT here of course.

[JohnR]

42 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I like the mini-Willesden idea, I can imagine high level lines and linking gradients playing into it all to distract from it being an FY.

 

Some of the more creative layout designers seem to hide their FYs very effectively below or behind scenic sections, using hinge-up boards, removable back-scenes etc. Colm Flanagan is one who has a genius for hiding track in plain sight.

 

All a bit OT here of course.

 

Shades of Maybank there

[RJS1977]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I especially don’t “get” the many home, never to be exhibited, layouts shown in magazines that follow the exhibition trend of a huge FY gobbling-up 50% of the footprint.  At home, it is possible without too much difficulty to hide the FY and have a much larger scenic area, especially given that most people seem to use the FY as a magazine for fixed rakes.

 

Of course, being home-based layouts, they're not for display so there's no reason for the builder to scenic them (or they may intend to but just not have got round to that bit yet). The question of access is also relevent.

 

ISTR one of CJF's plans with a lift-off village over the fiddle yard where he said that "If you're running an intensive service, you don't have time to look aat pretty buildings."

[5BarVT]

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Of course you could scenic through fiddleyard and separate passenger vehicles into coach sidings and freight stock into a yard. My dad did that and it worked out well - like a mini Willesden.

Hadn’t thought of that.  Too late for current layout but I’ll file it away for next time.

Paul.

[woodenhead]

James Street is a stunning example of a layout without hidden sidings, everything is scenic but it has areas where trains can be held with seperate areas for passenger vehicles and goods vehicles.

 

Have set this video to start where the sidings are shown:

 

[t-b-g]

We have done something like that on the extended "Narrow Road" layout (the main station of which is half of Broad Street). When we managed to conjure up a 40ft long shed for it to live in, Ken Hill and I built a complete railway, with two terminus main line stations and two through stations, one of which has a junction to a single track branch terminus.

 

So there is no real fiddle yard although the second main line terminus is really a scenic fiddle yard as the lines go beyond an overbridge at the end where loco release cassettes are placed to allow locos to be taken off the trains, turned and put on shed or back on the front of their train for the return journey.

 

There are loco sheds at both ends and at the branch terminus and enough storage including carriage sidings at Narrow Road for us to have pretty much all our locos and stock out with a few spares, which live in a wall mounted display case. The complete run is three times up and down the shed, around 120ft in total, all of which has scenic treatment, or it will one day.

 

By coincidence, one of our stations is called Willesden because that was where Ken was born and grew up and where his Dad worked as a driver on the LMS.

 

Edit to add a link to a little video that was done by one of Ken's sons on Youtube a while ago.

 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMopnBxvZ90

 

This just covers the main terminus.

Edited December 17, 2022 by t-b-g
To add content

[RJS1977]

4 hours ago, Izzy said:

I’ve come to the conclusion that many roundy’s are too much back-of-house for my liking. There have been a few, such as the marvellous 3mm Ballyconnell Road and the late David Jenkinson’s Dent that get the balance right, but for me, like t-g-b, a terminus wins hands down, especially if you are a lone modeller as I am. Another reason I think why Minories has such wide appeal. 

 

I think for an exhibition layout, a continuous layout has the advantage of in theory being able to keep things moving (unless the operators spend more time discussing what to send next/trying to find it on their handsets than running the trains).

 

However I think the best layout I've seen for "keeping things moving" was the Norwich layout at Warley 2019 which had a high level terminus with a low level goods yard meaning there was always movement going on somewhere. The downside is that it needed 4 operators!

[SteveyDee68]

3 hours ago, woodenhead said:

James Street is a stunning example of a layout without hidden sidings, everything is scenic but it has areas where trains can be held with seperate areas for passenger vehicles and goods vehicles.

 

Have set this video to start where the sidings are shown:

 

Oooh! I do like the tantalising glimpse of the docks (obviously still a work in progress)

 

It took me two viewings to work out that stored passenger trains are perhaps held in the carriage sheds - clever! Hidden in plain sight! (It was spotting locos at the ends of rakes of coaches in the shed that tipped me off*)

 

Taking away some ideas from that video - many thanks, @woodenhead

 

HOURS OF FUN!

 

 

 

* Unless I’ve got it completely wrong!

[Pacific231G]

On 15/12/2022 at 18:16, calcifer said:

How should Minories be adjusted for right-hand running?

Mirror image with the fiddle yard on the left would be easiest.

 

[Pacific231G]

On 17/12/2022 at 22:33, RJS1977 said:

 

Of course, being home-based layouts, they're not for display so there's no reason for the builder to scenic them (or they may intend to but just not have got round to that bit yet). The question of access is also relevent.

 

ISTR one of CJF's plans with a lift-off village over the fiddle yard where he said that "If you're running an intensive service, you don't have time to look aat pretty buildings."

On his Culm Valley branch, Maurice Deane built his fiddle yard as a scenicced yard that was in front of one of the stations. The layout was a pretty faithful rendition of the real branch and what I suppose could be taken as the "junction yard" looked fine. The funny thing is that when I operate my own BLT  at home I actually prefer to add the screen to the fiddle yard that I built for exhibting it. Though I know it's the fiddle yard I prefer my trains to go to and come from "offstage". The screen is quite a low one (if the public want to peer over it at the FY that's fine by me) so access isn't a problem - especially as I use Kadees that enable vehicles to be simply lifted out.  

[Pacific231G]

On 17/12/2022 at 16:24, t-b-g said:

At exhibitions, there is no doubt that a "roundy roundy" is much easier to operate than a terminus. Run one round, switch loops, send another one round and so on.

 

For holding the interest of an operator, there is no doubt in my mind that a good terminus to fiddle yard system takes some beating. They are also much easier to transport and take up less floor space at a show and the ratio of fiddle yard to scenic layout is usually much better.

 

The rebuilt through station version is about 75% fiddle yard and 25% scenic by board surface area, which just seems a wrong balance to me.

I couldn't agree more. I did discuss that with Tom Cunnington the first time I saw it in its extended form and understood the reasons why they did it- not least AFAIR to enable goods trains to be run-  but it just isn't the same for me.

I felt rather the same about Brian Thomas' 7mm scale "Newford". It was extended by its new owner with coach sdings and an EMU depot beyond the throat and ,though the actual terminus was almost unaltered, "Littleton" just wasn't the same. I think there's somethnig about how contained Minories is that really works well. 

I think the catch with "boucles" (Fr. term for roundy -rounds) is that, because you can just run trains round and round, that's often what ends up happening when  a point fails or they're an operator down, and unless a strict operating sequence is followed, shunting and actual train operations simply go by the wayside.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 17/12/2022 at 20:33, woodenhead said:

I guess home layout owners purchase too much and then need ever larger fiddleyards to store their trains.

 

I know I’ve been guilty of this and only recently started thinning out my stock.  Still have too much, even after selling Gresley and Collett coaches,  some of my Mark 1s are sat in boxes as no space on my cassettes for them.  Not helped by my penchant for parcels vehicles.

 

The idea (of thinning out a collection) works best if the funds raised aren’t immediately reinvested in new stock 😮.  Apparently few modellers ever really grasp that - despite many resolutions and best intentions of course.  Just thought I’d mention it.

 

Returning to Minories, one of the challenges it presents us for today is that it was designed for an era when modellers generally had much smaller collections (hence the genius of running an intensive service by ‘rotating’ a small number of tank engines).  The question of a ‘scenic track : fiddle yard’ ratio was - I suspect - quite low on the list of design priorities / issues.

 

In terms of a suggestion, the videos shared first by @t-b-g much earlier in this thread of the Hornby Dublo  Minories seems to me to provide plenty of plausible operating variety, with limited repetition through the sequences.  I didn’t count the trains, sorry.

 

I can’t find it just now, but @Harlequin designed a fiddle yard for Minories which I think had seven roads on baseboards the same size as the terminus, which to my mind would seem reasonable.

 

Hope that helps, Keith.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Autocorrect Typo: it’s Hornby Dublo, not Dunlop!

[Jeremy Cumberland]

15 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Hornby Dunlop Minories

Is that using traction tyres?

[JohnR]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

I couldn't agree more. I did discuss that with Tom Cunnington the first time I saw it in its extended form and understood the reasons why they did it- not least AFAIR to enable goods trains to be run-  but it just isn't the same for me.

I felt rather the same about Brian Thomas' 7mm scale "Newford". It was extended by its new owner with coach sdings and an EMU depot beyond the throat and ,though the actual terminus was almost unaltered, "Littleton" just wasn't the same. I think there's somethnig about how contained Minories is that really works well. 

I think the catch with "boucles" (Fr. term for roundy -rounds) is that, because you can just run trains round and round, that's often what ends up happening when  a point fails or they're an operator down, and unless a strict operating sequence is followed, shunting and actual train operations simply go by the wayside.

 

Which perhaps brings us back to those add-ons that CJF did (we've discussed them before) in the 70s/80s? 

[woodenhead]

6 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

The idea (of thinning out a collection) works best if the funds raised aren’t immediately reinvested in new stock 😮.  Apparently few modellers ever really grasp that - despite many resolutions and best intentions of course.  Just thought I’d mention it.

 

Returning to Minories, one of the challenges it presents us for today is that it was designed for an era when modellers generally had much smaller collections (hence the genius of running an intensive service by ‘rotating’ a small number of tank engines).  The question of a ‘scenic track : fiddle yard’ ratio was - I suspect - quite low on the list of design priorities / issues.

 

In terms of a suggestion, the videos shared first by @t-b-g much earlier in this thread of the Hornby Dunlop Minories seems to me to provide plenty of plausible operating variety, with limited repetition through the sequences.  I didn’t count the trains, sorry.

 

I can’t find it just now, but @Harlequin designed a fiddle yard for Minories which I think had seven roads on baseboards the same size as the terminus, which to my mind would seem reasonable.

 

Hope that helps, Keith.

 

 

I netted over 3k from my last clearout, a previous one got me 500 Pounds which went towards DCC chips and sound decoders for some of my remaining stuff. 

 

Yes it has been hard not to begin spending again - currently in N there is nothing I actually need, I even have too many Mk1 coaches and parcels vehicles.  So I am only buying oddities like the Co-Bo, a couple of Conflat Bs and then from Revolution one parcels unit and when the time comes a class 120 3 car unit.  I wouldn't mind a Peak or two but after that I have to stop really, really I do.  It's not like I haven't got locos boxed up still in N, there are several in the big box of boxes with some more to go back in to join them.  This is the curse of modelling, you collect stuff like trinkets then you end up just looking at them in their boxes.

 

I sold all my Southern Railyway locos and coaches leaving me with just SR wagons to go with my GWR stock - temptation though is coming in the form of the Kernow Steam Railmotor and the Rapido combo of a 44xx and a B-Set.  Hattons got me when they flashed up some GWR generics after I thought they had all sold out.  Thing is I don't have space for a permanent OO layout so really I shouldn't be adding to it, but will there be another opportunity to buy some of this stuff new?

 

Over the summer and especially after the Stafford show I really got into the idea of a North American shunting layout sans fiddleyard, but reality from the lack of space for the stuff I do have has so far kept me honest and not seen me frittering away my model fund on something else to keep in boxes.

 

Back to my N layout, which is a Minories derivative, I am using cassettes for storage - 7 long for passenger and parcels, four short for multiple units (two per cassette).  I think one more long cassette and then some stripping back of the stock that isn't boxed - even some locos back into their boxes for storage so that I don't have stuff gathering dust.

[RobinofLoxley]

I decided that for my layout, which I am still building, I would store stock on the layout only. It's quite large so that's a fair bit of stuff but I want it all to be useful not gathering dust. It's primarily end to end with parallel road termini but I included a loop so there is an option to repeat some blocks, not to leave anything on endless repeat. At some point it will be finished, stock and all. 

 

When the layout is out of use, it will be covered in lieu of storage cabinetry.

[Nearholmer]

Definitely the way to do it if you have room. I like the sound of this layout, BTW, because I regards terminus-circuit-terminus as the highest development of the art. Slightly sad that I’ve no longer got access to enough room to do that, because even in the very attenuated form I had it, it was ideal from an operational point of view.

[melmoth]

Two Minories, one above the other, separated by a helix...

[simon b]

1 hour ago, melmoth said:

Two Minories, one above the other, separated by a helix...

I thought Minories to Seironim was pretty good.

[Nearholmer]

Have you read “Paddington to Seagood”? That’s an account of the archetypal pre-WW2 0 gauge layout built in a redundant billiard room with the aid of an enormous cheque-book and it makes a compelling case for terminus-circuit-terminus, in that instance with a decent-sized junction station where one of the terminal branches departed the circuit. There’s an 0 gauge exhibition layout to that topology around, naturally a huge thing, and fully signalled, but I don’t remember what it’s called.

 

You could do it with Minories and a country/seaside cousin in 00 in a room about 12ft x 12ft I reckon, provided there wasn’t too much space-wasting scenery.

[melmoth]

Yes, I've read 'Paddington to Seagood'. Written by Gilbert Thomas, father of David St. John Thomas. I found it fascinating in that the emphasis was very much on operation - no messing about with scenery or ballast, but definitely a timetable and signals. A very different idea of what a model of a railway might be compared to today's often lococentric paradigms. Norman Eagles's Sherwood Section would be another example.

[john new]

1 hour ago, melmoth said:

Yes, I've read 'Paddington to Seagood'. Written by Gilbert Thomas, father of David St. John Thomas. I found it fascinating in that the emphasis was very much on operation - no messing about with scenery or ballast, but definitely a timetable and signals. A very different idea of what a model of a railway might be compared to today's often lococentric paradigms. Norman Eagles's Sherwood Section would be another example.

The Sherwood Section was inspiring to me too.

[RobinofLoxley]

Signals. Every time I read about signalling my brain shuts down. 

 

But I'm in a long term project. Just ballasting is going to take ages. 

Edited December 20, 2022 by RobinofLoxley

[Pacific231G]

17 hours ago, JohnR said:

 

Which perhaps brings us back to those add-ons that CJF did (we've discussed them before) in the 70s/80s? 

AFAIR this placed the whole thing on viaducts (like most of the railways on the opposite bank of the Thames from the City of London- lines that he was familiar with) but I think the idea was to not model anything beyond the viaduct with each module a separate scene that could be mixed and matched with the others.  I don't think scenery came anywhere in those plans.