Theory of General Minories

[Matloughe]

Hello All,

 

When I built 'Bishops Park' my 8x1 Minories, I used Peco Small Radius insulfrog points throughout - and it didn't affect the running my desire here as I was planning to primarily run Multiple Units was to have the station throat reasonably compact so as to offer the maximum platform space. If I were to do it again I would make some changes - I might use medium radius points to make it flow better - but equally I think I would build it on a slightly wider board for the bottom most track to have a run-around loop and kick back into a siding or two behind the signal box, I might be tempted to also or either to insert a centre road between the two main platforms - but this is just extra padding for more interest rather than essentials. I would also be tempted to build some of the station approach 'off scene' so trains could shunt backwards to change platform and moving the fiddleyard away from the station to give some more 'running in' time.
Putting the station on an 8' x 1' 6" or 2' board, a 4'x1' cutting bolted onto the end of that with two lines and a siding and then the Fiddleyard beyond that. The deeper station board to give the opportunity to add some scenery around & above the tracks (assuming its in a cutting) - I have found some photos of Bishops Park, including the station throat with those small-radius points I thought I would share:

Seen from above the exit to the fiddleyard, back in 2013 all pointwork is Peco Small Radius Insulfrog you can gauge a rough distance that the pointwork takes up about two foot six inches of length as it was on foot square cork tiles, this left one and a half feet to curve the tracks into the start of the platforms before the lifting section.

View from the opposite end; I definately think that on reflection the long narrowness of the platforms would be better offset by a deeper board allowing for more scenery for the town above and behind the station. I would certainly like to introduce a centre road adjacent to the Pacific and a run-around loop on the right-hand platform. Notice I never opted for a kick-back siding so the space on the top right-hand side (where the controller is) would be wasted or open ground without much scenic plan. I do think a siding or two serving a milk depot or parces depot would be a good idea and give the station pilot something else to do.
The centre road could be for running-around or simply a carriage siding to hold stock until needed.

This is the only photo I seem to have of stock traversing the small radius curve - it doesn't look bad to my eyes - the Bachmann EPB is a fantastic model.

I've always liked the platforms were of such a length they could accept a 4-coach train + locomotive it also allowed for you to adjust things:

Before building custom platforms and fixing them down I did a lot of testing using Hornby items, here I built a 'raft' and some support columns out of corregated card as a mock-up of the station building being on the location of the traditional bridge obscuring the hinges and it divided the layout up in an interesting manner - ultimately I decided the platform would go on a raft over the end of the platforms with the two main platform tracks finishing underneath in the gloom as it looked and felt more realistic.

Ultimately I wish I could go back; the layout over its short couple of years existance gave some real interest as my first 'attempt' at a real railway. Maybe I should go back and attempt it again with the adjustments I have mentioned already and make the 'ultimate' Bishops Park of my imagination... I will leave you with one last photo, its not fantastic quality, its taken over a decade ago - but I think it instills the ideas and direction I was going in with this minories project of yore.

A solitary 2-EPB sits ticking over in platform 2 at Bishops Park - its lights illuminating the platform and the newly constructed retaining wall of corregated cardboard... not a passenger is in sight, no staff, no station lighting. Just the rather warm glow from the units own lighting.

 

I hope my ramblings and ancient photos weren't too boring!
Kind Regards,
Gary

Edited January 31 by Matloughe

[TravisM]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

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.

 

 

 

I seem to remember that CJ Freezer was interviewed (in probably Railway Modeller as it was so long ago), and he said that the Minories plan, as was all his plans, were to inspire people, to adapt them if needed and not to follow them as if they were written in stone.  I think some people need to take a step back and admire what people have created, not criticise.  If not, build your own and show it to the world.

Edited January 31 by TravisM
Spelling

[Lacathedrale]

40 minutes ago, Matloughe said:

Hello All,

 

When I built 'Bishops Park' my 8x1 Minories...

 

I hope my ramblings and ancient photos weren't too boring!
Kind Regards,
Gary

 

On the contrary Gary, very well done. The central siding is something seen at Greenwich Park LCDR  - and you'd end up with something quite similar:

 

 

Note the signalbox at the rear - it has a loco siding/ash-pit behind it, just as you have described too. The turnout to access it can be seen in the foreground below:

 

 

Certainly a very evocative prototype, particularly since it dives straight into a tunnel too. Here's a map:

 

 

There was another crossover beyond the Burney Street Bridge, but without it, it's quite similar to the ideas that @t-b-g has with his arrival-only and departure-only version of Minories.

 

Though my Minories++ is stalled at the moment, one thing I think in retrospect I'd wished I'd included was a longer run between the station pointwork and the fiddle yard. Using Peco Bullhead 00 there are only a few inches between the last turnout and the start of the traverser - so shunting moves have to use the FY.

 

I reckon having a train length between the throat and the FY is the perfect size, but hard to do in 4mm/ft in all but the ladder shed!

Edited January 31 by Lacathedrale

[TravisM]

15 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

 

On the contrary Gary, very well done. The central siding is something seen at Greenwich Park LCDR  - and you'd end up with something quite similar:

 

 

Note the signalbox at the rear - it has a loco siding/ash-pit behind it, just as you have described too. The turnout to access it can be seen in the foreground below:

 

 

Certainly a very evocative prototype, particularly since it dives straight into a tunnel too. Here's a map:

 

 

There was another crossover beyond the Burney Street Bridge, but without it, it's quite similar to the ideas that @t-b-g has with his arrival-only and departure-only version of Minories.

 

Though my Minories++ is stalled at the moment, one thing I think in retrospect I'd wished I'd included was a longer run between the station pointwork and the fiddle yard. Using Peco Bullhead 00 there are only a few inches between the last turnout and the start of the traverser - so shunting moves have to use the FY.

 

I reckon having a train length between the throat and the FY is the perfect size, but hard to do in 4mm/ft in all but the ladder shed!

 

I remember seeing the plan of Greenwich Park awhile ago and thinking 'wow', it has so many possibilities.  You could even model it in the present day, basing it on the track plan of Norwich Thorpe station, between Platforms 4 and 5, with the centre road being used for storage.  The road crossing the railway behind the signal box, makes the perfect scenic break.

[TravisM]

If I was going to do 'Minories', this would be my plan using 6'x18" boards, but could be put on three 4'x18" boards but I wanted to keep all the point work on one of the boards as I used Peco long radius points.  It would be set in the present day and showed where there used to be a centre road in the station, long since removed as a cost saving exercise back in the 70's by BR.  I've shown modern signalling but I'd love to have put semaphore signals in instead.

 

 

Edited February 1 by TravisM
Spelling

[Pacific231G]

On 31/01/2024 at 09:11, Harlequin said:

 

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.

 

Well, as I said last night, it isn't impossible as I was able to lay it out on a table with just such points (I should have photographed it but trust me that I did do it and measured the result)  Assuming a symetrical pair of boards, it did fit (just) into the 3ft 6ins of the right hand board.  Possible yes, desirable probably not because of the vulnerability of the points at either end.  In seven feet that would also give very short train lengths just three main line coaches with a loco and a four car EMU/DMU.

If I really was trying to cram it into that length I'd face the dilemma of either accepting very short trains or lengthening the platforms by using sharper points and accepting the (very) excessive throwover- especially in the route between the inbound line and platform one. It depends a lot on what stock you're using. 

Geoff Pitt's Horn Lane uses a Minories throat (with a 3 way point for a fourth platform) made up from Peco small radius points and with Underground stock - both sub-surface and tube- it looks absolutely fine. I think the same would probably be true with pre-grouping stock but, with main line stock a similar throat looks positively toylike. 

I did  a lot of practical experiments with a range of 'Minories Variations' a few years ago and the problem I found with the pure Minories throat with medium radius points was that the at least one point length straight between the reverse curves gave even main line stock an acceptably snaking flow. However, the one route with an immediate reverse curve (inbound to platform 1) didn't look good.

I tried umpteen arrangements using Peco long Y as well as medium points (they're the same length) and found that using Ys for both of the back to back points gave a very bizarre wiggle on several routes  as trains encountered a double reverse curve. However, if I used one for just the right hand of the two back to back points (and a second at the end of plattform one.) I improved the critical route considerably but at the expense of rather more but just about acceptable end throwover on most of the other routes. That arrangement also had the advantage of a less extreme overall S through the throat and the platform end coming off at a 6 degree angle allowing a single gentle curve to bring platforms 1 & 2 to parallel with 3 rather than the  S of the original plan. 

 

I di use a large radius point for the entry to the throat but in practice it made relatively little difference.

BTW I did try using Ys for both the back to back points but found that gave a very strange looking wiggle for trains coming from platform two or three to the outbound main line. 

On the critical inbound to platfrom 1 route, these were the worst throwovers I found.

It's not pefect but there was no actual buffer lock so I could live with it.

 

I think the best compromise depends very much on the actual stock you're using.  The other thing I found was that if you mixed a large radius point with a medium radius in the same crossover you tended to get the throwover/buffer locking of the smaller radius point rather than the average between them. Again, this depended on coach length.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 4 by Pacific231G

[simon b]

I've never been a fan of the kick back siding from the lower platform, often thought another loco spur like this would make more sense.

 

 

[Harlequin]

36 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Well, as I said last night, it isn't impossible as I was able to lay it out on a table with just such points (I should have photographed it but trust me that I did do it and measured the result)  Assuming a symetrical pair of boards, it did fit (just) into the 3ft 6ins of the right hand board.  Possible yes, desirable probably not because of the vulnerability of the points at either end.  In seven feet that would also give very short train lengths just three main line coaches with a loco and a four car EMU/DMU.

If I really was trying to cram it into that length I'd face the dilemma of either accepting very short trains or lengthening the platforms by using sharper points and accepting the (very) excessive throwover- especially in the route between the inbound line and platform one. It depends a lot on what stock you're using. 

Geoff Pitt's Horn Lane uses a Minories throat (with a 3 way point for a fourth platform) made up from Peco small radius points and with Underground stock - both sub-surface and tube- it looks absolutely fine. I think the same would probably be true with pre-grouping stock but, with main line stock a similar throat looks positively toylike. 

I did  a lot of practical experiments with a range of 'Minories Variations' a few years ago and the problem I found with the pure Minories throat with medium radius points was that the at least one point length straight between the reverse curves gave even main line stock an acceptably snaking flow. However, the one route with an immediate reverse curve (inbound to platform 1) didn't look good.

I tried umpteen arrangements using Peco long Y as well as medium points (they're the same length) and found that using Ys for both of the back to back points gave a very bizarre wiggle on several routes  as trains encountered a double reverse curve. However, if I used one for just the right hand of the two back to back points (and a second at the end of plattform one.) I improved the critical route considerably but at the expense of rather more but just about acceptable end throwover on most of the other routes. That arrangement also had the advantage of a less extreme overall S through the throat and the platform end coming of at a 6 degree angle allowing a single gentle curve to the platform rather than the  S of the original plan. 

I think the best compromise depends very much on the actual stock you're using.  The other thing I found was that if you mixed a large radius point with a medium radius in the same crossover you tended to get the throwover/buffer locking of the smaller radius point rather than the average between them. Again, this depended on coach length.

 

For some reason the system isn't letting me post images just now so I'll add them when it does.

 

 

 

 

This is what I see using all Streamline Medium turnouts with no tricksy angles:

 

The ladder starts on the right exactly on one of the blue 1ft grid lines and all parts are butted exactly together. A thin white line shows where the two 3ft 6in boards join and you can see that the last turnout overhangs that line. You can also see that the basic 12° geometry doesn't slew the track across enough or at the right angle to feed Platform 3.

 

I have complete faith in my turnout templates because they proved to be very accurate when I used 1:1 printouts to lay down my Minories. (And that process taught me that I should even have allowed for the extra length caused by insulating joiners!)

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

6 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

This is what I see using all Streamline Medium turnouts with no tricksy angles:

 

The ladder starts on the right exactly on one of the blue 1ft grid lines and all parts are butted exactly together. A thin white line shows where the two 3ft 6in boards join and you can see that the last turnout overhangs that line. You can also see that the basic 12° geometry doesn't slew the track across enough or at the right angle to feed Platform 3.

 

I have complete faith in my turnout templates because they proved to be very accurate when I used 1:1 printouts to lay down my Minories. (And that process taught me that I should even have allowed for the extra length caused by insulating joiners!)

 

 

Thanks for this Phil - a helpful reminder to check, check and check again before cutting wood!  

 

A few months ago I put together a baseboard for a particular space where the optimum length for a staging yard board worked out at 7’2.5” - hardly a standard size, but repeated re-measuring confirmed it was what would work, so it’s what I made.

 

Incidentally, there’ll probably be someone here who can tell us if the design / length of the Peco Streamline points has ever changed since they were introduced many years ago.  If there have been any changes, it means the geometry won’t have been constant.  Just a thought, Keith.

 

 

[Pacific231G]

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

This is what I see using all Streamline Medium turnouts with no tricksy angles:

 

The ladder starts on the right exactly on one of the blue 1ft grid lines and all parts are butted exactly together. A thin white line shows where the two 3ft 6in boards join and you can see that the last turnout overhangs that line. You can also see that the basic 12° geometry doesn't slew the track across enough or at the right angle to feed Platform 3.

 

I have complete faith in my turnout templates because they proved to be very accurate when I used 1:1 printouts to lay down my Minories. (And that process taught me that I should even have allowed for the extra length caused by insulating joiners!)

 

OK Phil 

I laid it out again far more carefully with brand new code 75 points ensuring the ladder was dead straight and using set squares etc and you are right ..by 1/5 inch ! perhaps a quarter of an inch as I only used one set of insulating rail joiners and it needs two. I would never though rely on any template with a clearance that tight, you always need a bit of wiggle room. 

I don't think CJF was telling fibs when he gave that dimension- a wooden baseboard is not a precision engineering structure ( even less so when he published it long before laser cut baseboards).  In reality, whether the rail ends are flush with the baseboard end or very slightly proud of it they'd still be very vulnerable with a folding baseboard (to which I'd probably add a protective strip to the ends of a traditional frame).  I 've generally reckoned on a couple of inches between the end of the last point and the board end probably using copper clad sleepers at the very end though I guess that could come down to an inch.   

[Pacific231G]

4 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

Thanks for this Phil - a helpful reminder to check, check and check again before cutting wood!  

 

A few months ago I put together a baseboard for a particular space where the optimum length for a staging yard board worked out at 7’2.5” - hardly a standard size, but repeated re-measuring confirmed it was what would work, so it’s what I made.

 

Incidentally, there’ll probably be someone here who can tell us if the design / length of the Peco Streamline points has ever changed since they were introduced many years ago.  If there have been any changes, it means the geometry won’t have been constant.  Just a thought, Keith.

 

 

Hi Keith 

I looked at some of my older ones and there were very slight variations but I think the fundamental dimensions and angles have remained the same as the whole lot are cunningly designed to be put together to produce fairly complex track formations straight out of the box without trimming  (except for the timbering). I assume Sydney Ptitchard came up with that and they've stuck with it for H0/00 Streamline- even for bullhead. Their US 87 line range is totally different with a range of crossing angles as per the prototype. I've not examined their new TT trackwork in enough detail to know which approach it follows  . 

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

OK Phil 

I laid it out again far more carefully with brand new code 75 points ensuring the ladder was dead straight and using set squares etc and you are right ..by 1/5 inch ! perhaps a quarter of an inch as I only used one set of insulating rail joiners and it needs two. I would never though rely on any template with a clearance that tight, you always need a bit of wiggle room. 

I don't think CJF was telling fibs when he gave that dimension- a wooden baseboard is not a precision engineering structure ( even less so when he published it long before laser cut baseboards).  In reality, whether the rail ends are flush with the baseboard end or very slightly proud of it they'd still be very vulnerable with a folding baseboard (to which I'd probably add a protective strip to the ends of a traditional frame).  I 've generally reckoned on a couple of inches between the end of the last point and the board end probably using copper clad sleepers at the very end though I guess that could come down to an inch.   

 

CJF made beautiful designs within the limits of the technology at the time. We certainly have the advantage over him with computer design tools and precision measuring and cutting. Hopefully people don't take those old plans too literally these days. (Maybe I'm guilty of that!)

 

In my version of the 7ft by 1ft Minories I managed to keep the turnouts clear of the centre joint by about 30mm and at the entrance/exit the turnout is exactly flush to the 7ft mark, as drawn above, but there's a sturdy end frame the track has to pass through and I use the depth of that to protect the turnout from damage.

 

[Harlequin]

Here's my Minories brought out from its dusty corner with the cobwebs (mostly) brushed away:

 

The curved turnout in the centre really makes it flow nicely: Curves feeding into other curves with similar curves either side. ☺️

 

I cut back all the Peco gubbins around the tie bars and the tie bar ends themselves so they don't stand out so much, which probably helps the appearance of flow.

 

(The way the line into platform 3 joggles around the hinge post is an original CJF feature.)

 

[chuffinghell]

9 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Here's my Minories brought out from its dusty corner with the cobwebs (mostly) brushed away:

 

The curved turnout in the centre really makes it flow nicely: Curves feeding into other curves with similar curves either side. ☺️

 

I cut back all the Peco gubbins around the tie bars and the tie bar ends themselves so they don't stand out so much, which probably helps the appearance of flow.

 

(The way the line into platform 3 joggles around the hinge post is an original CJF feature.)

 

Neatly done sir, flows very nicely

[Typographer]

Just for fun, I had a go at plotting out Greenwich Park using Peco Bullhead & Code 75 for the 3-way and curved turnout. I put in the other crossover which is just visible (I think!) on Digimap.

The platforms could be curved a little like the original...

[Nearholmer]

For GP, you really need facing and trailing crossovers on the approach. You can just make out the point ends where they are mostly in a covered-way.

 

[Typographer]

30 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

For GP, you really need facing and trailing crossovers on the approach.

And I’ve tried to curve the platforms.

[St Enodoc]

10 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Incidentally, there’ll probably be someone here who can tell us if the design / length of the Peco Streamline points has ever changed since they were introduced many years ago.

Yes it has. I can't give chapter and verse but I know through my own experience, well over 50 years ago, that the second series small radius points (with hinged blades and springs) were slightly longer than the originals (without hinged blades or springs). On an early layout one of the original series failed and its replacement wouldn't quite fit until Dad trimmed a millimetre or two off the track leading up to it.

Edited February 1 by St Enodoc

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, Typographer said:

And I’ve tried to curve the platforms.

It all has a certain, satisfy sinuosity.

[KingEdwardII]

12 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I cut back all the Peco gubbins around the tie bars

I think this is a no-brainer when using the Peco pointwork and it improves the appearance immensely. Especially the case when using under-board mounted point motors.

 

Yours, Mike.

[simes]

12 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

I think this is a no-brainer when using the Peco pointwork and it improves the appearance immensely. Especially the case when using under-board mounted point motors.

 

Yours, Mike.

I wish I'd thought of that before laying my track. It does look so much better.

[Lacathedrale]

Has anyone built actually seen or built the originally proposed TT Minories? It seems with a Merchant Navy and some BR Suburbans converted to a facsimile of an EMU would be just as appropriate period piece was Dublo 3-rail?

[Pacific231G]

48 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Has anyone built actually seen or built the originally proposed TT Minories? It seems with a Merchant Navy and some BR Suburbans converted to a facsimile of an EMU would be just as appropriate period piece was Dublo 3-rail?

I don't think so but there was a 3mm scale Minories at Ally Pally a few years ago. 

[Flying Pig]

2 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Has anyone built actually seen or built the originally proposed TT Minories? It seems with a Merchant Navy and some BR Suburbans converted to a facsimile of an EMU would be just as appropriate period piece was Dublo 3-rail?

 

I think CJF designed Minories with the Triang TT Jinty and suburbans in mind.  You could add the Brush 2 for a mixed LMR and ER service in the Moorgate mode.  Perhaps also the Britannia and some Mk1 stock for longer distance trains.

 

There seems to be a fair amount of used Triang TT-3 around so this is probably a practical project whichever side of the Thames you choose.

Edited February 5 by Flying Pig

[Harlequin]

Has anyone built a TT:120 Minories yet?

 

At TT:120 scale, Minories SP35 would be 1.352 m long and 193mm wide, or call it 4ft 6in by 8in in old money.

 

Edited February 5 by Harlequin
Rounded width up to 8in