Theory of General Minories

[Pacific231G]

10 hours ago, TravisM said:

My very first 'proper' model railway when I was a kid, was Hornby Dublo 3 rail, and I've recently bought a few items to relive my childhood.  I'm seriously thinking of building Minories as CJ Freezer designed it, but with the track work of the era in mind when first drawn out, do you think I can make a convincing layout, to the same size and track plan using Hornby Dublo 3 rail track?

That wasn't though the track that CJF designed it for and with HD 3rail you'd lose the real virtue of the Minories scheme. For plans like that, he seems to have followed the general guidelines favoured in the 1950s  of 3ft radius points. This  was the nominal radius of Pecoway points and those hand laid using Peco's track components before Streamline was offered  (originally with 2ft radius points). Hornby Dublo 3 rail points were AFAIK about 15inch radius.

 

The whole point of the Minories design was that it avoided the immediate the reverse curves (on all but one of the six routes) that the more usual arrangement of a facing and a trailing crossover would have so that passenger trains could snake rather than lurch through the pointwork. However, that breaks down if you use smaller radius points . I have seen a layout (Horn Lane) with a terminus based on Minories that used two foot radius points but that was with LT Underground stock so the sharp curves weren't such a problem.  

I've long wanted to see a layout based on such "heritage" equipment but built for proper operation rather than for simply running trains roud and round but, in terms of appearance, I think that for a three platform main line terminus ,with HD track, straight crossovers would actually look better but you may disagree. this is what the two plans look like with HD 3 rail

I notice that the straight-crossover version is also rather narrower

 

With Peco streamline "medium" 3ft radius points the comparison looks like this and the Minories version does have more of a flow to it and main line coaches are less likely to experience apparent (or actual) buffer locking.

Operationally, and in signalling both versions are identical.

 

 

Edited January 29 by Pacific231G

[Flying Pig]

3 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

With Peco streamline "medium" 3ft radius points the comparison looks like this and the Minories version does have more of a flow to it and main line coaches are less likely to experience apparent (or actual) buffer locking.

Operationally, and in signalling both versions are identical.

 

Somehow the Minories version manages to look more complex than it actually is and has a more 'big station' atmosphere.  When straightened, the very basic nature of the layout becomes obvious.

 

[simon b]

12 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

That wasn't though the track that CJF designed it for and with HD 3rail you'd lose the real virtue of the Minories scheme. For plans like that, he seems to have followed the general guidelines favoured in the 1950s  of 3ft radius points. This  was the nominal radius of Pecoway points and those hand laid using Peco's track components before Streamline was offered  (originally with 2ft radius points). Hornby Dublo 3 rail points were AFAIK about 15inch radius.

 

The whole point of the Minories design was that it avoided the immediate the reverse curves (on all but one of the six routes) that the more usual arrangement of a facing and a trailing crossover would have so that passenger trains could snake rather than lurch through the pointwork. However, that breaks down if you use smaller radius points . I have seen a layout (Horn Lane) with a terminus based on Minories that used two foot radius points but that was with LT Underground stock so the sharp curves weren't such a problem.  

I've long wanted to see a layout based on such "heritage" equipment but built for proper operation rather than for simply running trains roud and round but, in terms of appearance, I think that for a three platform main line terminus ,with HD track, straight crossovers would actually look better but you may disagree. this is what the two plans look like with HD 3 rail

I notice that the straight-crossover version is also rather narrower

 

With Peco streamline "medium" 3ft radius points the comparison looks like this and the Minories version does have more of a flow to it and main line coaches are less likely to experience apparent (or actual) buffer locking.

Operationally, and in signalling both versions are identical.

 

 

 

Although probably not possible with 3 rail, a happy compromise if working with Peco medium radius is to use y points on the insides of the crossovers and loco spur. It still looks busy over the straight version, but doesn't have the buffer locking of the original design.

 

 

Edited January 30 by simon b

[melmoth]

11 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

That wasn't though the track that CJF designed it for...

 

Indeed, the original plan was for TT, if I remember correctly...

[Flying Pig]

41 minutes ago, melmoth said:

 

Indeed, the original plan was for TT, if I remember correctly...

 

The article in April 1957 Railway Modeller gives dimensions for both 00 and TT-3.

[TravisM]

13 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

That wasn't though the track that CJF designed it for and with HD 3rail you'd lose the real virtue of the Minories scheme. For plans like that, he seems to have followed the general guidelines favoured in the 1950s  of 3ft radius points. This  was the nominal radius of Pecoway points and those hand laid using Peco's track components before Streamline was offered  (originally with 2ft radius points). Hornby Dublo 3 rail points were AFAIK about 15inch radius.

 

The whole point of the Minories design was that it avoided the immediate the reverse curves (on all but one of the six routes) that the more usual arrangement of a facing and a trailing crossover would have so that passenger trains could snake rather than lurch through the pointwork. However, that breaks down if you use smaller radius points . I have seen a layout (Horn Lane) with a terminus based on Minories that used two foot radius points but that was with LT Underground stock so the sharp curves weren't such a problem.  

I've long wanted to see a layout based on such "heritage" equipment but built for proper operation rather than for simply running trains roud and round but, in terms of appearance, I think that for a three platform main line terminus ,with HD track, straight crossovers would actually look better but you may disagree. this is what the two plans look like with HD 3 rail

I notice that the straight-crossover version is also rather narrower

 

I must admit that I do like the first plan, but what worries me is the point throws, either manual or electric can interfere with other points if laid too close to the diverging route of another point.  Or is it just the way it's drawn on AnyRail but not like that in real life?

[Keith Addenbrooke]

31 minutes ago, TravisM said:

 

I must admit that I do like the first plan, but what worries me is the point throws, either manual or electric can interfere with other points if laid too close to the diverging route of another point.  Or is it just the way it's drawn on AnyRail but not like that in real life?

It is possible to plot track arrangements in Anyrail where point tie bars will foul when laid out - this was for a curved fiddle yard entrance that Anyrail said was OK.  Anyrail is a great product and very useful, but it is worth checking tight arrangements, Keith.

 

[t-b-g]

My personal choice, on the minories style layouts I have built, is to use larger radius points and straighten the plan. No matter how well it avoids reverse curves, small radius points and me do not get well together. They never look good to me other than in an industrial yard layout.

 

The original out and back reverse curve was one of the aspects that I was not keen on. Even in that tight a space, it was not necessary and wasn't something I think a real railway would do in that sort of situation. So I am happy with the lines in and out being offset compared to the platforms and I have used a gently curving platform rather then a dead straight one, which appeals to my eyes. I have also moved the loco spur point nearer the first trailing crossover, which gives a nicer alignment and a longer siding, with no down side that I can see.

[TravisM]

13 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

It is possible to plot track arrangements in Anyrail where point tie bars will foul when laid out - this was for a curved fiddle yard entrance that Anyrail said was OK.  Anyrail is a great product and very useful, but it is worth checking tight arrangements, Keith.

 

 

I agree that AnyRail is a good product, quite easy to use, but as Hornby Dublo points (and track) is made from stamped steel and absolutely no give in them, so it can be difficult to get them to fit as you'd like them.

[Flying Pig]

4 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

The original out and back reverse curve was one of the aspects that I was not keen on.

 

 

Once you dispense with the signature feature, applying the name Minories (even Minories-style) to a plan seems inappropriate to me, since nothing else in Minories is really original enough to deserve the name.  It gets to the point where every plan between BLT and mahoosive is labelled Minories, which imo makes the term so vague as to be almost meaningless.

[Nearholmer]

23 minutes ago, TravisM said:

it can be difficult to get them to fit as you'd like them.

The more determined users saw the point-operating mechanism off and re-mount it on the other side, when otherwise in a right spot!

 

 

[t-b-g]

14 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

 

Once you dispense with the signature feature, applying the name Minories (even Minories-style) to a plan seems inappropriate to me, since nothing else in Minories is really original enough to deserve the name.  It gets to the point where every plan between BLT and mahoosive is labelled Minories, which imo makes the term so vague as to be almost meaningless.

 

I disagree. If you keep the same actual layout but organise the pointwork and platforms differently in terms of LH/RH/Y points and their radius, we are only doing what CF himself did and tinkering with the plan.

 

The main feature of Minories was, to me, always the way it was operated, as a secondary double track terminus with a loco spur and no run round facilities. There is a very specific arrangements of the points to give arrivals and departures from all three platforms and possible simultaneous moves from certain combinations. Whether the platforms were curved, straight or had an S bend doesn't change any of that.

 

The couple of layouts I have built may not be true Minories but they were directly influenced and inspired by the CJF plan and I am happy to call them a modified Minories, or Minories style. They would never have been built had the CJF Minories not have been published.

 

Every time I have exhibited them, viewers have commented on the link to Minories, so there must be something there.  

[Harlequin]

This is what I came up with using current Peco Streamline 00 turnouts and fitting the throat into the 1ft by 3ft6in footprint of the 00 plan published by Peco in "60 Plans for Small Locations":

 

Two Small radius turnouts (blue) were needed to fit the throat into the restricted length and it's crucial that the inbound tracks turn 15° across the board to use the maximum diagonal length. There's a short 3° turn between the two main crossovers to achieve that.

 

The light brown turnouts are all Mediums and the green is a Curved left, which really makes the plan work.

 

I have actually built this and it looks as smooth in real life as it does in the drawing! ☺️

 

 

IMHO, if a plan doesn't have that characteristic "Minories Eye" of the trailing and facing crossovers combined with a turn, it ain't Minories. That is the source of all Minories' magical powers.

 

Edited January 31 by Harlequin

[tom s]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and Minories is in the eye of the station throat... or something...

[Pacific231G]

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

This is what I came up with using current Peco Streamline 00 turnouts and fitting the throat into the original 1ft by 3ft6in footprint of the 00 plan published by Peco in "60 Plans for Small Locations":

 

Two Small radius turnouts (blue) were needed to fit the throat into the restricted length and it's crucial that the inbound tracks turn 15° across the board to use the maximum diagonal length. There's a short 3° turn between the two main crossovers to achieve that.

 

The light brown turnouts are all Mediums and the green is a Curved left, which really makes the plan work.

 

I have actually built this and it looks as smooth in real life as it does in the drawing! ☺️

 

 

IMHO, if a plan doesn't have that characteristic "Minories Eye" of the trailing and facing crossovers combined with a turn, it ain't Minories. That is the source of all Minories' magical powers.

 

Hi Harlequin 

I agree with you about the Minories "eye" being the defining feature of a Minories. Three or four platform MLT's with a double crossover have been around forever. It was CJF's genius  way of arranging them that made Minories such an effective way of getting round the problem  of main line trains lurching across sharp model crossovers with their buffers locking furiously instead of snaking in and out. 

Your plan is interesting but I think you may be giving yourself a slightly exaggerated problem in trying to fit the throat into 39 inches (aka 1 metre) Though the original plan in RM did quote a length of 6'6" for the layout. It appeared in early editions of 60 plans as 6'8" and carefully measuring the original plan against the rulers shown (fairly easy with a graphics programme) reveals this to have been the actual length- a typo in RM perhaps?  it was of course designed as a 5ft folding layout in TT-3 and if you scale that from 3 to 4 mm/ft you duly get 80 inches (That's about right for going from 12mm to 16.5mm gauge as well) . i notice that all of CJF's later plans for Minories were 7 or 8 ft long with three foot radius points; Peco Streamline Medium now but also the nominal radius of the then Pecoway points along with others. 

The basic Minories throat does fits tightly into three feet and very comfortably into a metre

 with 3ft radius points but the kickback siding (I've never been sure what that's for operationally) obviously complicates that as you now need to fit five point lengths into the throat rather than four. With SMP 3 ft radius points I think you could just manage it in the forty inches but with Streamline mediums you might have to trim a bit . 

What coaches did you use with your Minories? I've experiments with various permutations of  Minories and found that, with main line stock, using 2 ft radius points in a Minories throat or even on their own gives very excessive throwover between coaches (at the worst point a buffer on one coach tends to be aligned with the wrong buffer on the next coach and forget about corridor connections)  so I'd not go below three foot radius. 

 

[RobinofLoxley]

6 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

It is possible to plot track arrangements in Anyrail where point tie bars will foul when laid out - this was for a curved fiddle yard entrance that Anyrail said was OK.  Anyrail is a great product and very useful, but it is worth checking tight arrangements, Keith.

 

This is usual when the LH turnout is a small Streamline sl91 or sl92. I had to cut the tie bar ends off in order to get the fan to work.

[Izzy]

1 minute ago, Pacific231G said:

I agree with you about the Minories "eye" being the defining feature of a Minories.

 

And I think this came about by the need to come up with a design that used just standard L/R hand points, all that were available for TT at the time. This was the driver from which it all developed IMHO. Everything past that just refined and adjusted it for other scales and needs.

 

To my mind though it wasn't just about the track design, so simple and clever as it is, but the whole concept. A small folding layout that could be used and then packed away in a small space. Maximum usage from minimum hardware in terms of layout size, rolling stock numbers, and thus total outlay. The way housing is going these days, new builds where there are no garages and precious little other spare space of any kind, means ideas like this will become even more important than they have been in the past for many. Witness the growing number of 'shelf/plank' layouts now around. It has always been this way for me.

[St Enodoc]

8 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

 

Once you dispense with the signature feature, applying the name Minories (even Minories-style) to a plan seems inappropriate to me, since nothing else in Minories is really original enough to deserve the name.  It gets to the point where every plan between BLT and mahoosive is labelled Minories, which imo makes the term so vague as to be almost meaningless.

I think that's where this topic started almost 12 years ago!

[Pacific231G]

2 hours ago, Izzy said:

 

And I think this came about by the need to come up with a design that used just standard L/R hand points, all that were available for TT at the time. This was the driver from which it all developed IMHO. Everything past that just refined and adjusted it for other scales and needs.

 

To my mind though it wasn't just about the track design, so simple and clever as it is, but the whole concept. A small folding layout that could be used and then packed away in a small space. Maximum usage from minimum hardware in terms of layout size, rolling stock numbers, and thus total outlay. The way housing is going these days, new builds where there are no garages and precious little other spare space of any kind, means ideas like this will become even more important than they have been in the past for many. Witness the growing number of 'shelf/plank' layouts now around. It has always been this way for me.

Funnily enough, I think some of the original attraction was the "axonometric" projection CJF drew it with (simply the conventional plan  turned through 45 degrees with vertical elevations added at the same scale. With this plan it seemed to just bring the layout to life. I'm looking forward to the first folding Minories in TT120 . 

[Harlequin]

29 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Funnily enough, I think some of the original attraction was the "axonometric" projection CJF drew it with (simply the conventional plan  turned through 45 degrees with vertical elevations added at the same scale. With this plan it seemed to just bring the layout to life. I'm looking forward to the first folding Minories in TT120 . 

 

The axonometric view is reproduced in my track plans album, using my Streamline plan:

 

BTW: I think that the statement of 3ft minimum radius that accompanies the original plan in "60 plans..." was simply a mistake. I don't think it is or was possible in the 7ft by 1ft size given for the 00 version with the kickback siding.

 

Edited January 30 by Harlequin

[Pacific231G]

11 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

I reproduced the axonometric view with my Streamline plan in my track plans album:

 

BTW: I think that the statement of 3ft minimum radius that accompanies the original plan in "60 plans..." was simply a mistake. I don't think it is or was possible in the 7ft by 1ft size given for the 00 version.

 

Hi Phil 

It is possible, though at first sight It appears not to be. Peco medium L&R points are 8 1/2 inches long so five would be 42 1/2 inches and therefore half an inch too long. However, I've just laid the plan out with those points and it does fit... just and with not a whisker to spare. It's the fact that three of the points in a row are at a 12 degree angle that makes the difference.

I wouldn't build it though, at last not with those points, as you'd be right up to forty two inches* so would have the toes of the two endmost points flush with the board ends (Ask Danster Civicman why that's not a great idea. He described what happened when the entry point to Birmingham Hope Street snagged when he was moving it from the fiddle yard) 

It would though work more comfortably with SMP 3ft radius points as the ones I have in front of me are 8.1 inches long with I think a ten degree crossing angle. With those you'd have over an inch of plain track beyond the points at each end of the board which should be enough for some copper clad anchoring.  However, with a seven foot long layout you'd have a maximum train length including loco of about 48 inches on platform 1 and 42 inches on platform three clear of the kick back siding point.  

 

*So the Great Question of Life the Universe and Everything turns out to be "How long must a H0/00 Minories throat with a kickback siding be with Peco medium radius points in inches." Who'd have thought that was the great question. We apologise for the inconvenience. 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

12 hours ago, Izzy said:

…The way housing is going these days, new builds where there are no garages and precious little other spare space of any kind, means ideas like this will become even more important than they have been in the past for many…

 

Very true - we are in the process of moving from a Victorian 4-storey property to a modern house that is exactly as you describe: no garage (where it could be is a Study / Home Office, which we need) and no real storage (no cellar, attic room or outhouse).  And yes, it is why I’m looking again at Minories 😀, Keith.

[Flying Pig]

18 hours ago, t-b-g said:

The main feature of Minories was, to me, always the way it was operated, as a secondary double track terminus with a loco spur and no run round facilities. There is a very specific arrangements of the points to give arrivals and departures from all three platforms and possible simultaneous moves from certain combinations. Whether the platforms were curved, straight or had an S bend doesn't change any of that.

 

 

Yeah but...

 

The specific arrangement of the points, 'Minories Eye' apart, is just two crossovers and a bay, which is not quite as basic as possible, but not far off and nothing particular to celebrate.  The lack of runround and use of a pilot isn't particularly innovative either.

 

And the operation CJF designed it around was high intensity suburban working, like a sliver of Liverpool Street, with a rapid procession of very similar trains, not requiring much stock*.  This is relatively rare to see in model form, most operators choosing a more varied mixed secondary terminus mode as you describe.  (*Possibly with the very limited Triang TT-3 range in mind.)

 

So all I'm saying is that  perhaps we should not be quite so quick to deploy the Minories tag whenever a smallish terminus appears.

[Harlequin]

9 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Hi Phil 

It is possible, though at first sight It appears not to be. Peco medium L&R points are 8 1/2 inches long so five would be 42 1/2 inches and therefore half an inch too long. However, I've just laid the plan out with those points and it does fit... just and with not a whisker to spare. It's the fact that three of the points in a row are at a 12 degree angle that makes the difference.

I wouldn't build it though, at last not with those points, as you'd be right up to forty two inches* so would have the toes of the two endmost points flush with the board ends (Ask Danster Civicman why that's not a great idea. He described what happened when the entry point to Birmingham Hope Street snagged when he was moving it from the fiddle yard) 

It would though work more comfortably with SMP 3ft radius points as the ones I have in front of me are 8.1 inches long with I think a ten degree crossing angle. With those you'd have over an inch of plain track beyond the points at each end of the board which should be enough for some copper clad anchoring.  However, with a seven foot long layout you'd have a maximum train length including loco of about 48 inches on platform 1 and 42 inches on platform three clear of the kick back siding point.  

 

*So the Great Question of Life the Universe and Everything turns out to be "How long must a H0/00 Minories throat with a kickback siding be with Peco medium radius points in inches." Who'd have thought that was the great question. We apologise for the inconvenience. 

 

I agree that in some of the many versions of Minories that CJF drew and published it might have been possible to maintain a 3ft minimum radius using the turnouts that were available at the time.

 

In "60 plans for small railways", where Minories is plan "49s", the length of the layout is 6'8", there is no kickback siding but no minimum radius is stated. So this version might be possible with min radius 3ft turnouts.

 

However, in "60 plans for small locations" the introduction says that all pointwork is Setrack or Streamline, Minories is now Plan SP35. the length is 7ft, it has a kickback and the minimum radius is stated as 3ft. This combination is, I think, impossible.

 

Edited January 31 by Harlequin

[t-b-g]

20 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Yeah but...

 

The specific arrangement of the points, 'Minories Eye' apart, is just two crossovers and a bay, which is not quite as basic as possible, but not far off and nothing particular to celebrate.  The lack of runround and use of a pilot isn't particularly innovative either.

 

And the operation CJF designed it around was high intensity suburban working, like a sliver of Liverpool Street, with a rapid procession of very similar trains, not requiring much stock*.  This is relatively rare to see in model form, most operators choosing a more varied mixed secondary terminus mode as you describe.  (*Possibly with the very limited Triang TT-3 range in mind.)

 

So all I'm saying is that  perhaps we should not be quite so quick to deploy the Minories tag whenever a smallish terminus appears.

 

I agree with you. I have never suggested that any small terminus can be called a Minories. All I have said is that my own small terminus stations were inspired by Minories. That is a simple, indisputable fact I know to be true 'cos it was me that was inspired!

 

I looked closely at the Minories design, chose which parts I liked and which I didn't and came up with a couple of layouts. To say they are Minories is wrong. To say they are nothing to do with Minories is equally wrong. They are just a variation on the design and calling them "inspired by" allows me to give some credit to CJF for the original plan and the inspiration.