Theory of General Minories

[Pacific231G]

In 2007 there was a competition to build Minories based layouts which produced some stunning entries and shows just how adaptable the basic layout is. You can see the top entries here.

 

http://www.newrailwaymodellers.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=23304#p287782

Maybe I'm being pedantic but while I agree about the stunning entries- Moor Street is particularly good and I did like Ripper Street- I never really went along with the idea that any terminus with all three platforms directly accessing both tracks of a double main line is "A Minories". I know that was the premise of the 50th annivesary competition but it's not the key feature of Cyril Freezer's classic design. The real genius of Minories was his particular arrangement of five points (plus one for the loco spur) to produce a very short throat with minimum S curves that looks more complex and mainlineish than it really is. CJF himself said he could never improve on it and for me, if it doesn't include that it just ain't Minories.

It's actually fairly trivlal to design such a throat for three platforms, even a minimum length one, or for any number of platforms you fancy. The clever bit is to not have trains lurching over multiple sharp crossovers when they arrive and depart. The big railway achieves that by not using sharp crossovers (though there are some very elegant prototype throats such as the current Paddington) but most of us simply don't have the length.

 

The other clever bit is to arrange for multiple paths to always be available for simultaneous arrivals and departures without the throat stretching into next week but that's a different story (though it's dead easy to add to Minories)

Edited September 25, 2014 by Pacific231G

[Karhedron]

There was a recent minories-based layout I saw the track plan for, I think it might have been called Hammersmith. Does this ring any bells with anyone? I actually thought it was in the BRM track plan book but there was no sign of it when I bought it.

[Pacific231G]

There was a recent minories-based layout I saw the track plan for, I think it might have been called Hammersmith. Does this ring any bells with anyone? I actually thought it was in the BRM track plan book but there was no sign of it when I bought it.

Would that have been the 3mm scale "Shepherds Bush" layout? I think it was featured in the 2008 BRM Annual (which I have but it's hiding) The builders baased it on Minories but ISTR that in their blurb they said they couldn't quite fit it into the space and run the five coach trains they wanted so modified it to be a single track rather than a double track mainline. It represented an imagined GWR suburban terminus situated in a real location behind the Shepherd's Bush CLR station that I think branched off the Ealing Broadway-WLER line (now the Central Line) at Wormwood Scrubs. It was/is notable for being fitted with working GW Colour Light signals. 

I saw it at the 2007 St. Albans show and took these photos.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Pacific231G

[hayfield]

I have skimmed through this thread for some inspiration/information on the plan. I have the 60 plans for small railways by CJF 3rd edition, 3rd impression  (May 75) which has a 3d impression of Town termini S53 and Minories S54 both being 6'8" long

 

Now my idea is for something to run my collection of vintage stock, which is mainly Jamieson/Eames locos and wooden coaches from Ratio/CCW/Kings cross. A retro style layout would be ideal match for this stock. Track will have to be code 100 owing to some of the wheels not being compatible with code 75. I have a length of 8'6" and am happy for the station throat being on a 3' radius as it will have to be L shaped.

 

I also have plenty of vintage track and track parts and will build my own turnouts from the likes of W&H, Peco etc. I do have a few Peco spiked point pack, or I am happy copying GEM turnouts which I believe are 3' radius. 

 

My first question is what size points/turnout were used by CJF. Secondly is there a 2 plan (rather than a 3D sketch) anywhere

Looking at the 3D sketch it looks like the main turnout formation on the plan is squeezed into the 2'8". The Peco spiked points are 8" long, I cannot see these fitting into the space in the sketch. All thoughts on this subject would be most welcome

[Karhedron]

Secondly is there a 2 plan (rather than a 3D sketch) anywhere

Yup, there is a 2D plan for Minories here. This is the 1981 version which includes the original Minories and also the modular add on parts such as the engine shed area. This is someone's interpretation of Minories and includes a few adjustments of their own including a curved point. Hopefully it is still some use to you.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/78492-minories-holborn-viaduct/page-3&do=findComment&comment=1224380

[hayfield]

Karhedron

 

Thank you very much, if I can scan it into Templot then it will be quite easy to copy the track plan. Having said that I need a 3' radius curve on the exit !!

 

Please can anyone enlighten me on the size of turnouts used by CJF in these plans

Edited November 28, 2014 by hayfield

[kevinlms]

Karhedron

 

Thank you very much, if I can scan it into Templot then it will be quite easy to copy the track plan. Having said that I need a 3' radius curve on the exit !!

 

Please can anyone enlighten me on the size of turnouts used by CJF in these plans

I believe CJF would have based his plans around the standard range of Peco points, especially the 2ft & 3ft radius. I think the set track ones, were a much later addition.

[bluebottle]

As I am the someone who posted the 2D plan to which Karhedron refers, I have to point out some misunderstandings of and discrepancies in the plan. Firstly, it isn't an interpretation of CJF's original but my corelDRAW redrawing of a later magazine version he produced, in an attempt to give a clearer image than the Master's rather small, hand-drawn original. A work “after” Freezer, if you will, but within the limits of copyright law (I hope!) giving a usable version of his work. I left the scale rule as it was, though it appears to increase the overall size from 6'8”x9” to approximately 10'x1'3”. One might be best to ignore this, work out the layout of the pointwork using templates or whatever, and check that the lengths of the platform roads are acceptable within the intended length of the projected layout. As Pacific 231G observes in post 53: “I wonder if his move from Peco meant that he no longer felt obliged to base his plans on their standard trackwork.” I don't think that his later plans were as prescriptive of choice of track and pointwork as are some magazine articles, and that we were meant to adapt his offering according to our own lights.

By the way, the drawing in “60 plans” is not a 3D sketch but an orthographic projection; i.e. no perspective is applied, and you can, if it suits you, ignore my drawing and stick to Cyril's!

[hayfield]

Gordon

 

Thanks for the explanation, the whole idea is to have something to run my vintage stock and have a retro style layout (50's / 60's) so platforms that hold 3 coaches is fine. The standard turnouts (points) available then were either 24" or 36" radius or the Peco offerings and as I said I have various old turnout construction parts that I could use, but may just stick to copperclad and or spiked track on modern laser cut timbers

 

Your plan is similar to the Town Termini (S53) in the book rather than the Minories (S54). I do like the idea of having add on base boards

 

Thanks for the clarification of plan style

[Pacific231G]

I have skimmed through this thread for some inspiration/information on the plan. I have the 60 plans for small railways by CJF 3rd edition, 3rd impression  (May 75) which has a 3d impression of Town termini S53 and Minories S54 both being 6'8" long

 

Now my idea is for something to run my collection of vintage stock, which is mainly Jamieson/Eames locos and wooden coaches from Ratio/CCW/Kings cross. A retro style layout would be ideal match for this stock. Track will have to be code 100 owing to some of the wheels not being compatible with code 75. I have a length of 8'6" and am happy for the station throat being on a 3' radius as it will have to be L shaped.

 

I also have plenty of vintage track and track parts and will build my own turnouts from the likes of W&H, Peco etc. I do have a few Peco spiked point pack, or I am happy copying GEM turnouts which I believe are 3' radius. 

 

My first question is what size points/turnout were used by CJF. Secondly is there a 2 plan (rather than a 3D sketch) anywhere

Looking at the 3D sketch it looks like the main turnout formation on the plan is squeezed into the 2'8". The Peco spiked points are 8" long, I cannot see these fitting into the space in the sketch. All thoughts on this subject would be most welcome

I've got that edition of 60 plans in front of me now and it is slightly ambiguous. Plans S53 and S54 are both from the original "Minories" article in Railway Modeller but the one listed as S53 in that edition is  the design that has become classic.

 

If Peco spiked points are 8" long then surely the four of them end to end required for the Minories, or any other double crossover throat, would be 2ft 8ins long (the angle of two of them in Minories makes it slightly shorter but the difference is negligible.

 

As Bluebottle says, Cyril Freezer's drawings for Minories weren't sketches but properly drawn plans using what he described as an "axonometric projection". This is simply a conventional two dimensional plan turned through 45 degrees with vertical lines added to give the third dimension. There is no perspective so you can take measurements from it in all three dimensions and if you simply turn the published plans 45 degrees anti-clockwise and remove (or ignore) the third dimension you get back to a normal track plan. I think it was an idea he was trying out because AFAIK he didn't use it again for other plans though it can be quite useful for visualising proposed layouts.

 

With current Peco Streamline H0/00 small (nominally 2ft radius) points, the Minories throat will fit fairly comfortably into 2ft 6inches. With Peco medium points (3ft radius) the same formation occupies 2ft 10 1/2 inches. Freezer's later published versions of Minories were all based on three foot radius points .  

 

I've been doing some experiments with throat designs and the problem with corridor coaches is always the excessive throwover on the reverse curves required by simple crossovers. For three platforms feeding a double track main line there are six possible routes and most double track throats require trains to traverse a crossover for all but two of them. With the Minories design only one route involves an immediate reverse curve, for the other five the reverse curve is separated by the length of one or two points so trains do snake rather lurch through them.  With modern stock I've found, using Peco points, that the best compromise between length and gentleness of curves is to use long (5ft radius) points for the back to back crossover in the middle of the formation and medium (3ft radius) for the outer points and this fits comfortably onto a metre (3ft 9in) long baseboard.

 

However,  as soon as you design a throat for a curved approach as with your planned L shape layout you can avoid reverse curves entirely and get much smoother movements even with three foot radius points. I've endlessly quoted the five platform Paris Bastille as a very elegant example of this (In it's final form SNCF used very sharp standard points normally only used in goods yards but still handled long ex DR coaches) but for a three platform terminus it's fairly easy to arrange. How long is the other leg of your L and what sort of trains and services (intense suburban or longer distance trains) do you envisage running?

Edited November 29, 2014 by Pacific231G

[hayfield]

Pacific231G

 

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to think through the problem and offer advice. Martin Wynn of Templot fame as advised that I alter the turnouts from an A switch to a 9' switch. These are appx 8.75" long. The size of the room is 8'6" x 8'. The crossover will be on the curve so we are talking of 2/3 turnout lengths on the straight and I would like a bit of plain track between the crossover and the other turnouts.

 

I also guess that the platforms may have to be 4' long as I would like a tender loco + 3 coaches (quart into a pint pot comes to mind). Whilst a 3' radius curve would be ideal perhaps a 2' 6" radius may be better. Under normal circumstances I would avoid that radius, but this is a retro style layout and all but the largest layouts of the 60's thought a 3' radius was large.

 

Another option is to build some if not all the turnouts curved, perhaps this goes away from the original plan but could be a solution

 

Templot if fine for making plans of turnouts and crossings. It takes a little more effort to make a layout plan, however it is a plan you can build from

[bigdaveadams1]

Has anyone ever managed to build an N gauge minories? I'm thinking 8ft including fiddle yard would be sufficient in N.

[sp1]

Pacific231G

 

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to think through the problem and offer advice. Martin Wynn of Templot fame as advised that I alter the turnouts from an A switch to a 9' switch. These are appx 8.75" long. The size of the room is 8'6" x 8'. The crossover will be on the curve so we are talking of 2/3 turnout lengths on the straight and I would like a bit of plain track between the crossover and the other turnouts.

 

I also guess that the platforms may have to be 4' long as I would like a tender loco + 3 coaches (quart into a pint pot comes to mind). Whilst a 3' radius curve would be ideal perhaps a 2' 6" radius may be better. Under normal circumstances I would avoid that radius, but this is a retro style layout and all but the largest layouts of the 60's thought a 3' radius was large.

 

Another option is to build some if not all the turnouts curved, perhaps this goes away from the original plan but could be a solution

 

Templot if fine for making plans of turnouts and crossings. It takes a little more effort to make a layout plan, however it is a plan you can build from

It will be interesting to see what you come up with

[sp1]

Gordon

 

Thanks for the explanation, the whole idea is to have something to run my vintage stock and have a retro style layout (50's / 60's) so platforms that hold 3 coaches is fine. The standard turnouts (points) available then were either 24" or 36" radius or the Peco offerings and as I said I have various old turnout construction parts that I could use, but may just stick to copperclad and or spiked track on modern laser cut timbers

 

Your plan is similar to the Town Termini (S53) in the book rather than the Minories (S54). I do like the idea of having add on base boards

 

Thanks for the clarification of plan style

I also like the idea of add on baseboards: I have often thought this would make a good exhibition project for a club, or small group of individuals (or one individual with a consistent plan) - could gradually be expanded, without having to scrap previous work,and could be varied by means of different interconnecting boards.

[Pacific231G]

Pacific231G

 

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to think through the problem and offer advice. Martin Wynn of Templot fame as advised that I alter the turnouts from an A switch to a 9' switch. These are appx 8.75" long. The size of the room is 8'6" x 8'. The crossover will be on the curve so we are talking of 2/3 turnout lengths on the straight and I would like a bit of plain track between the crossover and the other turnouts.

 

I also guess that the platforms may have to be 4' long as I would like a tender loco + 3 coaches (quart into a pint pot comes to mind). Whilst a 3' radius curve would be ideal perhaps a 2' 6" radius may be better. Under normal circumstances I would avoid that radius, but this is a retro style layout and all but the largest layouts of the 60's thought a 3' radius was large.

 

Another option is to build some if not all the turnouts curved, perhaps this goes away from the original plan but could be a solution

 

Templot if fine for making plans of turnouts and crossings. It takes a little more effort to make a layout plan, however it is a plan you can build from

I've had a play around with an L shaped layout in your room space using XtrkCad and standard Peco points. Obviously you don't have to use off the shelf points but I'm assuming that what can be done with those can be done even more efficiently with hand laid pointwork. 

 

These two plans are functionally the same as Cyril Freezer's later versions of Minories with a kick back goods yard  off a goods headshunt. I've just placed a couple of sidings for reference in the goods yard corner; more design would be called for here. Traditionally with L shaped termini this tends to be where a turntable and stabling point/loco shed are positioned and the loco sput could then be the entrance to a goods yard. Fro now though I've retained the topology of CJF's Minories in terms of possible train movements.

 

Using curved points does make a signficant difference to the platform and fiddle yard length and with a minimum 36" curve still gives you about four foot six inches on the longest platform compared with  barely four feet even using a 30" exit curve with 3' radius left and right hand points. That version does look as if it includes reverse curves but doesn't (Bastille was the same though from all accounts trains there did lurch uncomfortably for passengers )

If there are going to be backing moves on the main line then it's maybe worth trying to keep the 36" radius minimum to avoid derailments.

 

This is the version using 3ft radius left and right hand points

 

and this is the same plan but with some curved points. I don't have any experience of using these so don't know if they create any problems.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Pacific231G

[hayfield]

Pacific231G

 

Thanks for that, there should be no problems with curved track especially as I will build it myself so not restricted by what's available from the ready to plonk market

 

Looking at your plan you have moved the head shunt and platforms to the front and lost the goods yard a bit from the initial design which is what I am after. Also it has lost a bit with the reverse curve, which I note you dislike, but from memory of some London termini was a common feature  

 

I am playing about a bit with Templot and Martin Wynn has already suggested an alteration away from the A5 turnout design by using a 9' switch rather than the A switch. As for the curved turnouts on the first crossover, as I am building them myself the biggest problem is the very sharp inner radius going from the outer curved track to the inner, I will either try and design a larger curved turnout on the outside or slip in a straight  turnout on the outer side of the curve. 

[Satan's Goldfish]

I also like the idea of add on baseboards: I have often thought this would make a good exhibition project for a club, or small group of individuals (or one individual with a consistent plan) - could gradually be expanded, without having to scrap previous work,and could be varied by means of different interconnecting boards.

Sounds like an idea for the rmweb modular concept to me......

[TonyMay]

I've had a play around with an L shaped layout in your room space using XtrkCad and standard Peco points. Obviously you don't have to use off the shelf points but I'm assuming that what can be done with those can be done even more efficiently with hand laid pointwork. 

 

These two plans are functionally the same as Cyril Freezer's later versions of Minories with a kick back goods yard  off a goods headshunt. I've just placed a couple of sidings for reference in the goods yard corner; more design would be called for here. Traditionally with L shaped termini this tends to be where a turntable and stabling point/loco shed are positioned and the loco sput could then be the entrance to a goods yard. Fro now though I've retained the topology of CJF's Minories in terms of possible train movements.

 

Using curved points does make a signficant difference to the platform and fiddle yard length and with a minimum 36" curve still gives you about four foot six inches on the longest platform compared with  barely four feet even using a 30" exit curve with 3' radius left and right hand points. That version does look as if it includes reverse curves but doesn't (Bastille was the same though from all accounts trains there did lurch uncomfortably for passengers )

If there are going to be backing moves on the main line then it's maybe worth trying to keep the 36" radius minimum to avoid derailments.

 

This is the version using 3ft radius left and right hand points

Minories L L&R points.jpg

 

and this is the same plan but with curved points. I don't have any experience of using these so don't know if they create any problems.

Minories L curved points.jpg

 

I like the curved points version better - it has more flow.  Can't see how curved points would cause any problems.

[Pacific231G]

Pacific231G

 

Thanks for that, there should be no problems with curved track especially as I will build it myself so not restricted by what's available from the ready to plonk market

 

Looking at your plan you have moved the head shunt and platforms to the front and lost the goods yard a bit from the initial design which is what I am after. Also it has lost a bit with the reverse curve, which I note you dislike, but from memory of some London termini was a common feature  

 

 

I mirrored it to make the final crossover before the main line a trailing  one. I don't know if that is a rule but it seems less conflicting for any shunting moves onto the main line to use the outbound rather than the inbound line.

 

I agree that there is something very attractive about a train smoothly snaking its way through a set of pointwork. The problem with reverse curves is that it tends to be more of a lurch than a snake and unless you can can use really long turnouts, corridor connections get so far out of alignment that any passenger moving between carriages would be pitched onto the track. My local branch comes off the main line via a crossover and a junction point and though it takes HSTs quite happily trains do lurch rather than snake though the actual corridor connection displacement is less than a foot!!

 

I used some old points to carry out tests with both the standard Minories throat with various permutations and then with some simple crossovers. The problem is very pronounced with medium (3ft radius) length points.

 

It is still very apparent even with Peco long points (5ft nominal radius) points though I'm not sure whether Peco's particular geometry to give the same final angle as a standard 3ft radius point for short and long points as well makes this worse than would be the case for a couple of natural points forming a crossover the same length.

 

 

I did these tests with a couple of types of coach - these are Rivarossi "DEV-Inox" coaches about 11 3/8" long (287mm) over buffers and fitted with close coupling units and Roco close couplings.

I did find that the classic Minories throat was rather gentler and two back to back long points with medium points at the ends did give a result that I felt I could live with.

[martin_wynne]

It is still very apparent even with Peco long points (5ft nominal radius) points though I'm not sure whether Peco's particular geometry to give the same final angle as a standard 3ft radius point for short and long points as well makes this worse than would be the case for a couple of natural points forming a crossover the same length.

 

A proper double-track crossover always has both turnouts of the same hand, even when in curved track. This is impossible to create using Peco curved turnouts (or any other ready-made track that I know of).

 

The Peco exit angle of 12 degrees (1:4.7) is far too sharp for passenger trains, the normal limit being 1:8 for straight crossovers and then only dead slow.

 

Curved crossovers can be created without a reverse curve, but still need a long crossing angle to keep the radius sensible. A good size for model curved crossovers is C-10. Here's a print from Templot showing that:

 

 

edit: the inner turnout (but not the outer) could be changed to a B-10, saving a bit on the overall length.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited November 30, 2014 by martin_wynne

[RJS1977]

A proper double-track crossover always has both turnouts of the same hand, even when in curved track. This is impossible to create using Peco curved turnouts (or any other ready-made track that I know of).

 

 

Sorry, can't get my head round that one. Surely with a curved point, whether it is left handed or right handed depends on which way the point curves when approached from the tiebar end (i.e. the larger radius is equivalent to the "straight" and the sharper radius is equivalent to the "branch" on a straight point).

Edited November 30, 2014 by RJS1977

[hayfield]

Martin

 

Thanks for that, is there a way to compress the turnout size. No doubt there is room for the crossover but there will be a big gulf in size between them and the nine foot V5 turnouts 

 

Are the 50mm track centres OK with 30" curves please

[Ian_H]

Sorry, can't get my head round that one. Surely with a curved point, whether it is left handed or right handed depends on which way the point curves when approached from the tiebar end (i.e. the larger radius is equivalent to the "straight" and the sharper radius is equivalent to the "branch" on a straight point).

 

 

My thoughts are the same as yours so I look forward to Martin giving a further explanation because at the moment I can't see an alternative. From Martin's diagram I would have thought the outside point is a Left handed curved point and the inside one a Right handed curved point.

[martin_wynne]

My thoughts are the same as yours so I look forward to Martin giving a further explanation because at the moment I can't see an alternative. From Martin's diagram I would have thought the outside point is a Left handed curved point and the inside one a Right handed curved point.

 

Hi Ian,

 

The hand of a turnout is determined by the hand of the switch. The direction of curving through the turnout is irrelevant. It is an important distinction because it controls the speed limits through the turnout.

 

The hand of a switch means the direction of the switch deflection angle. This is a left-hand switch:

 

 

Traffic traversing the main road straight ahead sees no deflection and can proceed at full line speed.

 

Traffic traversing the diverging turnout road to the left is suddenly deflected from its path at the switch deflection angle. In a B-switch that angle is 1:32. In a C-switch it is 1:40.

 

You can see the switch deflection angle as a sharp bend in the left-hand stock rail, called the "set". The planing of the switch blades matches the same angle.

 

Because of the switch deflection, there is always a speed limit for traffic traversing the diverging road of a turnout, sometimes a severe limit.

 

Crossovers between running lines are always arranged so that the switch deflection is towards the crossover road, so that there is no speed restriction for traffic on the running lines. This means that both turnouts in such a crossover are always of the same hand.

 

Here below you can see that for the straight track, both turnouts are obviously left-hand. When the whole formation is laid into a curved track, the turnouts don't change. They are both still left hand:

 

 

When the curving through a turnout goes in the opposite direction from the hand, as in the top-right turnout, it is called "contraflexure". In Templot the curving radius in the main road is shown as a negative value for contraflexure.

 

If the turnout at top-right was changed to a right-hand turnout, traffic on the running line would see the switch deflection angle and be subject to a speed limit.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[bigdaveadams1]

Well you've lost me and I drive trains for a living!

 

Having re read the post, I'm with you now!

Edited November 30, 2014 by bigdaveadams1