Theory of General Minories

[Chris116]

Cheers Chris. Is there a new version out? No Manitoba Quays in the one I've downloaded!

The copy I have says it is the 2015 Layout Annual. The plans cover Aldeburgh, Builth Road, Severn Valley Railway at Highley, Isle of Wight, Manitoba Quays, Oakworth and Weymouth.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Chris116

[ThePurplePrimer]

This is the one with Manitoba Quays in it

 

http://www.mremag.com/news/article/ideas-for-layouts/21126

 

I found the magazine very interesting and well worth the asking price

Edited April 27, 2015 by ThePurplePrimer

[bigdaveadams1]

I'm struggling to find somewhere to buy it online. I might be able to make it to WH Smiths in York tomorrow or maybe Monk Bar have it. Failing that, could anyone give me a hint as to the track plan in question? My mate mentioned the use of a single slip?!

[edcayton]

You will struggle to find it because it's neither BRM nor MRE, but by Model Rail magazine. If you read the review in PP's link you will see. Sorry I don't have my copy to hand, but I don't know about digital versions. Dibber 25 is yer man.

 

Ed

[ejstubbs]

I just ordered a copy from here - which is the web page linked from dibber25's post on this thread.

[bigdaveadams1]

Cheers EJ, I managed to get into town and picked up a copy. For me, the Manitoba Quays layout plan has too much going on and has lost that lovely feel that Minories had.

[CaptainBiggles]

So, in the opinion of the esteemed members of this board, would the layout below be considered an homage to Minories, or an abomination?

 

 

I believe it adheres to to the original principle by having 3 in / out platforms, albeit truncated by using double-slips. Curved medium radius points means CJF's pleasing sweep to the throat is kept.

 

The loco release was added to allow driving a Jinty & suburban coaches as well as E/DMUs, but could be omitted if it caused offence

 

A little shunting puzzle has been added at the front for no other reason than it's a signature of mine on layouts (see Boostfine Yard), and it seems to fill the space near the throat quite nicely. An alternative configuration has been added below the drawing.

 

All boards are 4' x 18" but could fit on a 15" board if wished.

 

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts...

 

Joel

[JohnR]

I would omit the loco release. It requires the train to be shorter, and the original idea at Minories (as well as at most termini in real life) was that coaches would be released by a pilot engine.

[Chimer]

Presumably it's not against a wall, so the lower traverser roads can access the up and down lines?

[31A]

I'd be inclined to leave the loco release crossover in, even if as a non-operational 'scenic feature', as I think it would be normal for a steam age terminus to have a means for a loco to run round a train if necessary; in fact I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere it would be a Board of Trade requirement.  I've got one on my layout which (just) allows a tank engine to run round five 57 footers, although in practice it's rarely used as a 'turn over' loco is always present.  It'd be the sort of thing which might come in handy for a ballast train on a Sunday, for example, when there might not be any other locos around. 

[SRman]

I added the loco release to my variation on Minories with my old layout. It gave me the option to do the release and run round, or to put a new loco on the front and drive the old one out afterwards, whichever took my fancy. Even though the crossover is there, one doesn't have to use it, it's just one more option that adds to the operational interest and flexibility.

[St Enodoc]

 

Minories itself is operationally equivalent to the first plan but it was the particular arrangement of points that made Cyril Freezer's design such a classic as it avoids several immediate reverse curves over crossovers.

minories & straight line equivalent.jpg

I agree with David. The arrangement of the two crossovers is the defining characteristic of Minories. If a plan does not feature this arrangement, then in my book it is not really a Minories derivative.

Edited July 17, 2015 by St Enodoc

[SRman]

I agree with David. The arrangement of the two crossovers is the defining characteristic of Minories. If a plan does not feature this arrangement, then in my book it is not really a Minories derivative.

 

I probably wouldn't go quite as far as to say it is not a Minories derivative, but David's point about the reverse curves being avoided is a valid one, That was one of the main features that attracted me to the plan in the first place, together with the ability to run trains in and out of the terminus without too many conflicts.

 

The one reverse curve I introduced with the loco release crossover was not an issue because only light engines were to use it, not whole trains.

 

My subsequent layout designs have always tried to keep reverse curves to a minimum, using the Freezer principles from Minories, although there have also always had to be compromises (i.e. I haven't entirely succeeded in eliminating them!).

[Flying Pig]

The basic topology of Minories is so simple, just two crossovers and a bay, that it really can't be regarded as a defining feature Of the design. So, for me no CJF Weave, no Minories.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Back of envelope doodlings.....

 

 

* Platforms diagonal to baseboard to maximise length

 

* Platforms of different lengths for operational interset

 

* Can depart from each platform, but only arrive at three - again for interest

 

* All pointwork on one board

 

* Remember that two short trains can be accomodated on some termini platforms - Bath Green Park wouldn't have been able to operate without that facility

 

* Arrival platforms sometimes longer than departure ones, as they need to hold loco and coaches . Departure platforms can have loco beyond platform end if short in length

 

* Centre road makes terminus look "more important" and useful for stock storage

[CaptainBiggles]

So are we saying that it is the dog-leg through the throat that makes Minories? And I assume that by "reverse curve" you mean to left-hand (or right hand) points back to back? Because by realigning the platform roads the affect of these curves could be minimised, as can be seen below.

 

 

That said, the board has now grown by 6" to 2' wide and I've had to break the shunting puzzle headshunt to avoid the baseboard join.

[Karhedron]

Whilst mostly good, departing trains from platform 2 have a bad time of it in the above plan with 3 reverse curves.

[CaptainBiggles]

3? Can you explain please? I'm not sure I'm seeing what everyone else is - it's like the emperor's new clothes!

[Fenman]

...

 

* Arrival platforms sometimes longer than departure ones, as they need to hold loco and coaches . Departure platforms can have loco beyond platform end if short in length

 

...

 

In BR LHCS days, the departing trains from King's Lynn to Cambridge & Liverpool Street were routinely too long for the one main platform; a 37 + 9x Mk2 would have the 37 and a full coach waiting beyond the length of the platform. Arriving trains clearly had 2 Mk2 coaches stopped before they reached the platform; people knew (or were told) to just walk through the train.

 

Paul

[leopardml2341]

In BR LHCS days,

 

(Snip)

 

Arriving trains clearly had 2 Mk2 coaches stopped before they reached the platform; people knew (or were told) to just walk through the train.

 

Paul

Would those be the same days when one took responsibility for ones own actions?

[Karhedron]

 

Whilst mostly good, departing trains from platform 2 have a bad time of it in the above plan with 3 reverse curves.

3? Can you explain please? I'm not sure I'm seeing what everyone else is - it's like the emperor's new clothes!

 

 

Here, I have scribbled on your plan (I hope you don't mind). It shows the path of outbound trains from the middle platform is very wiggly.

 

Edited July 17, 2015 by Karhedron

[CaptainBiggles]

Don't mind at all Karhedron, thanks.

 

The same could be said for anything arriving on platform 1 too - that's surely a feature of having in / out platforms, in one direction some form of crossover has to occur. CJF's plan eased this by using the straight section of the point rather than the curve as the transition, (which is what the above does too) rather than a more linear arrangement. But either way there has to be some form of crossing if all roads are deemed bi-directional.

[St Enodoc]

Don't mind at all Karhedron, thanks.

 

The same could be said for anything arriving on platform 1 too - that's surely a feature of having in / out platforms, in one direction some form of crossover has to occur. CJF's plan eased this by using the straight section of the point rather than the curve as the transition, (which is what the above does too) rather than a more linear arrangement. But either way there has to be some form of crossing if all roads are deemed bi-directional.

That's quite true, but the clever part of the Minories crossover arrangement (as sketched by Peter K in post #390) is that trains only have to negotiate one reverse curve on any of the routes through the throat.

[kevinlms]

Don't mind at all Karhedron, thanks.

 

The same could be said for anything arriving on platform 1 too - that's surely a feature of having in / out platforms, in one direction some form of crossover has to occur. CJF's plan eased this by using the straight section of the point rather than the curve as the transition, (which is what the above does too) rather than a more linear arrangement. But either way there has to be some form of crossing if all roads are deemed bi-directional.

You've answered your own point (sorry) there. By describing exactly what CJF achieved, by clever use of the handing of the points. A traditional crossover between parallel tracks ALWAYS has a reverse curve, by using points of opposite hands, this doesn't occur. Its all about avoiding reverse curves. This is the key to Minories.

CJF stated in later years, that regardless of how many times he tried to improve the basic design, he never achieved that goal.

[Flying Pig]

So are we saying that it is the dog-leg through the throat that makes Minories? And I assume that by "reverse curve" you mean to left-hand (or right hand) points back to back? Because by realigning the platform roads the affect of these curves could be minimised, as can be seen below.

It's a very specific arrangement of points in the throat that makes Minories. As you say, there are other ways to reduce the effects of crossovers, but they are not Minories.

 

That said "Minories" is a proper noun referring to a specific layout plan and not an adjective meaning "well-designed" when referring to small urban termini. There a lots of different ways to drink your Vimto - one of my favourite layouts, Tower Pier, is quite different from Minories (and rather odd) but works very well.