Theory of General Minories

[ejstubbs]

Hi Kevin

 

This is what inspired Cyril Freezer. https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/533047/181577/13/101329

 

Edit, I forgot to say when you click on the link you will need to zoom out as it will give the following message "Subscribe to view mapping at this zoom level"

 

Try this one on the NLS Maps web site: http://maps.nls.uk/view/101201565 - the quality's a bit better, and you can zoom in as much as you like.  You can see the curve that took trains in to platforms 1 & 2 at Liverpool Street.

 

Am I right in thinking that the two lines on the south side of what's marked on that map as Bishopsgate Station terminate there?  (IIRC the original Great Eastern terminus a bit further north, before they built Liverpool Street, was called Bishopsgate.)

 

Does anyone know what the line with the wagon turntables on is between Broad Street and Liverpool Street?  It looks as if the lines heading west away from the turntables run underneath Broad Street station itself, and the goods station too.  Probably warehousing vaults would be my guess, like St Pancras.

[Clive Mortimore]

Try this one on the NLS Maps web site: http://maps.nls.uk/view/101201565 - the quality's a bit better, and you can zoom in as much as you like.  You can see the curve that took trains in to platforms 1 & 2 at Liverpool Street.

 

Am I right in thinking that the two lines on the south side of what's marked on that map as Bishopsgate Station terminate there?  (IIRC the original Great Eastern terminus a bit further north, before they built Liverpool Street, was called Bishopsgate.)

 

Does anyone know what the line with the wagon turntables on is between Broad Street and Liverpool Street?  It looks as if the lines heading west away from the turntables run underneath Broad Street station itself, and the goods station too.  Probably warehousing vaults would be my guess, like St Pancras.

Hi

 

Thanks. The line (or lines?) on the south side was a terminating line. I can only recall there being enough room for one line, but the platform could have been widened at some point. I do remember catching a train from the bay platform before it was removed and the platform surface widened, sometime in the 80s, I think. The connection to the GER station only lasted a short while before the the GER and the Met Rly fell out with each other. The Victorians built Crossrail way before there was a desire by the residents of Reading to visit Shenfield. The tunnel between the two Liverpool Street stations lasted up to the rebuilding of the Street in the 80s-90s.  Last time I traveled on the Met line the signal box was still standing but that was nearly two years ago so it could well be history.

 

Bishopsgate Station name was only used by the Met Rly for a short time, before renaming to Liverpool St. 

 

I know very little about Broad Street station. I never went there despite trainspotting at Liverpool Street on most of my London visits.

 

Here is a clearer version of the map I first posted and as I stated before it was this layout that inspired Cyril Feezer. Note on the real thing there is no access from the outer circle line to the inner circle line for east/south bound trains, or for west/north bound trains to go from the inner line to the outer. The slip is a single and only allows trains from the outer to get to the bay platform and those from the bay to get on to the inner line. CJF modified it when turning the plan into a terminus so that trains entering the station could get to all platforms and those departing from any platform the "down" line.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Clive Mortimore

[Flying Pig]

CJF modified it when turning the plan into a terminus so that trains entering the station could get to all platforms and those departing from any platform the "down" line.

Also to avoid using a slip which wasn't then available, I'd imagine.

 

Signal diagrams for Liverpool St Met and Circle are available as pdfs at http://www.harsig.org/Circle.htm (Widened Lines 1956 and Metropolitan 1933 diagrams). The available moves are particularly clear on the 1956 version.

 

Edit: also check out the crossovers on the Widened Lines at Moorgate in 1956.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Flying Pig

[kevinlms]

Hi Kevin

 

This is what inspired Cyril Freezer. https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/533047/181577/13/101329

 

Edit, I forgot to say when you click on the link you will need to zoom out as it will give the following message "Subscribe to view mapping at this zoom level"

Further to the discussion on Minories. In Railway modeller 1997 December page 579, there is a letter from CJF, who in part states

 

'The inspiration for 'Minories' was Liverpool Street (MET) in its 1950s guise, when the bay road was in full use for the Aylesbury loco-hauled trains and the outer platform had a licensed bar'.

[martin_wynne]

Edit, I forgot to say when you click on the link you will need to zoom out as it will give the following message "Subscribe to view mapping at this zoom level"

 

No need to subscribe and no watermarks on the NLS site and you can zoom in as much as you wish:

 

 http://maps.nls.uk/view/101201565#zoom=5&lat=2576&lon=8764&layers=BT

 

 

Martin.

[Harlequin]

I'm a little bit late to this thread (5 years!) but for my own interest I have recently drawn a plan of the original Minories layout and since it largely meets the OP's request I'm posting it here.

 

It uses standard Peco Streamline HO/OO parts and honours the original 7ft by 1ft baseboard size divided in the centre and joined by hinged posts.

 

The details of rails and sleepers are just indicative, not intended to be visually accurate. To see the layout geometry and to pick apart the details, view the attached PDF in Acrobat Reader, where you can turn different layers on and off.

 

I hope it's useful - it was very satisfying to draw.

 

 

PhilM

 

Minories 12.pdf (Edit: Improved colour coding of geometry layer)

 

Edited August 22, 2017 by Harlequin

[whart57]

I know this is completely off the wall and defeats the shelf nature of a minories layout, but it always strikes me that the interest is the pointwork beyond the platforms. Has the concept ever been tried in a continous run layout? Since you have an overall roof over the platforms you could bend the track round after a foot or so, and as you can't see it the radius could be as tight as your trains will take. In fact only platform roads with a crossover at the end need to go into the back of the fiddle yard. At the other end it shouldn't be difficult to put in some urban scenic treatment to justify flange squealing curves - you could even lay a continuous check rail to make it seem they are meant to be sharp. You might get the whole shebang into a garden shed or third bedroom and you would be able to have longer trains

Edited August 31, 2017 by whart57

[Flying Pig]

You might find this thread interesting:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/118704-an-un-named-layout-with-a-nod-to-cj-freezer/?hl=freezer

[CloggyDog]

I'm currently planning a 'station throat' bitsa  of which the scenic bit comprises the throat between an overbridge signal box (left side) as one scenic break and then the platform ends with a large overall roof (right side) as the other, all in 1200mm by 400mm.

 

3 platforms (up and down mains, plus a reversible relief, a through goods line (bottom) and a goods shed to the rear(top) with it's own headshunt, plus a loco road between the mains and relief. Based on German practice, so it might look a bit odd to UK modellers. It was based on a plan published in the German mag MIBA around this time last year.

 

2016-12-20_02-50-04 by Alan Monk, on Flickr

 

I'll be doing it as Hasselhöf Ost Hbf, circa 1982(ish) with plenty of mainline steam.

 

While I'm building it with a fiddle at each end, it could easily form the scenic section of a roundy-roundy with a fiddle to the rear, though with 4 roads on and off at each end, curvature might become an issue.

 

I know this is completely off the wall and defeats the shelf nature of a minories layout, but it always strikes me that the interest is the pointwork beyond the platforms. Has the concept ever been tried in a continous run layout? Since you have an overall roof over the platforms you could bend the track round after a foot or so, and as you can't see it the radius could be as tight as your trains will take. In fact only platform roads with a crossover at the end need to go into the back of the fiddle yard. At the other end it shouldn't be difficult to put in some urban scenic treatment to justify flange squealing curves - you could even lay a continuous check rail to make it seem they are meant to be sharp. You might get the whole shebang into a garden shed or third bedroom and you would be able to have longer trains

[Joseph_Pestell]

I'm currently planning a 'station throat' bitsa  of which the scenic bit comprises the throat between an overbridge signal box (left side) as one scenic break and then the platform ends with a large overall roof (right side) as the other, all in 1200mm by 400mm.

 

3 platforms (up and down mains, plus a reversible relief, a through goods line (bottom) and a goods shed to the rear(top) with it's own headshunt, plus a loco road between the mains and relief. Based on German practice, so it might look a bit odd to UK modellers. It was based on a plan published in the German mag MIBA around this time last year.

 

2016-12-20_02-50-04 by Alan Monk, on Flickr

 

I'll be doing it as Hasselhöf Ost Hbf, circa 1982(ish) with plenty of mainline steam.

 

While I'm building it with a fiddle at each end, it could easily form the scenic section of a roundy-roundy with a fiddle to the rear, though with 4 roads on and off at each end, curvature might become an issue.

Well yes, it does look odd to me. It seems to be wrong for RH running.

[St Enodoc]

I'm currently planning a 'station throat' bitsa  of which the scenic bit comprises the throat between an overbridge signal box (left side) as one scenic break and then the platform ends with a large overall roof (right side) as the other, all in 1200mm by 400mm.

 

3 platforms (up and down mains, plus a reversible relief, a through goods line (bottom) and a goods shed to the rear(top) with it's own headshunt, plus a loco road between the mains and relief. Based on German practice, so it might look a bit odd to UK modellers. It was based on a plan published in the German mag MIBA around this time last year.

 

2016-12-20_02-50-04 by Alan Monk, on Flickr

 

I'll be doing it as Hasselhöf Ost Hbf, circa 1982(ish) with plenty of mainline steam.

 

While I'm building it with a fiddle at each end, it could easily form the scenic section of a roundy-roundy with a fiddle to the rear, though with 4 roads on and off at each end, curvature might become an issue.

Reckon it needs more double slips to capture that German look Alan!

[Junctionmad]

I'm a little bit late to this thread (5 years!) but for my own interest I have recently drawn a plan of the original Minories layout and since it largely meets the OP's request I'm posting it here.

 

It uses standard Peco Streamline HO/OO parts and honours the original 7ft by 1ft baseboard size divided in the centre and joined by hinged posts.

 

The details of rails and sleepers are just indicative, not intended to be visually accurate. To see the layout geometry and to pick apart the details, view the attached PDF in Acrobat Reader, where you can turn different layers on and off.

 

I hope it's useful - it was very satisfying to draw.

 

Minories11.png

 

PhilM

 

Minories 12.pdf (Edit: Improved colour coding of geometry layer)

 

you have to admire CJFs skill in avoiding reverse curves yet using standard settrack geometry, its a much more masterful design then people realise IMHO 

[The Johnster]

you have to admire CJFs skill in avoiding reverse curves yet using standard settrack geometry, its a much more masterful design then people realise IMHO 

 

This is the true genius of the original Minories, where stock occasionally had to be propelled into the fiddle yard to access the off-stage carriage sidings, or propelled into platforms by the pilot in the quieter parts of the day when top-and-tailing with the outgoing loco was not indulged in as it would be in rush hours with tighter turnarounds.  Don't forget the layout is designed for as intense as possible a service of loco hauled stock, not multiple units as would be assumed by most modern modellers connecting it with an intensive suburban commuter service.  Ten past five and they're coming down those steps like a tidal wave on both sides!  CJF's idea was to use 4 coach loco hauled trains of non-gangwayed compartment stock, a respectable length on a model railway in those days, and needed to save the space that would otherwise be occupied by an engine release crossover in a plausible way.  Propelling derailments as a result of buffer locking or overriding couplings on proprietary track were less unusual then as well.  It should be recreated in any Minories type layout, otherwise it's just another non-descript passenger terminus station.

Edited September 1, 2017 by The Johnster

[Harlequin]

In fact there are 3 very slight reverse curves, one on each platform line, in CJF's original. I reproduced them faithfully in my drawing. They are all quite large radii, though.

 

As I understand it reverse curves become a problem when:

a. Vehicles or bogies have long wheelbases so that you get large outwsings which strains the couplings.

and

b. When curves are canted so that where the two curves join the change in cant twists one vehicle against the next.

 

So maybe not such a problem in models where curved track is not usually canted and where couplers are more forgiving than in the real world?

 

PhilM

[Compound2632]

In fact there are 3 very slight reverse curves, one on each platform line, in CJF's original. I reproduced them faithfully in my drawing. They are all quite large radii, though.

 

As I understand it reverse curves become a problem when:

a. Vehicles or bogies have long wheelbases so that you get large outwsings which strains the couplings.

and

b. When curves are canted so that where the two curves join the change in cant twists one vehicle against the next.

 

So maybe not such a problem in models where curved track is not usually canted and where couplers are more forgiving than in the real world?

 

PhilM

 

Quite apart from the mechanics of keeping the trains on the rails, it's the look of the thing - how can you believe in what you're seeing if the carriage ends are offset by the width of the corridor connections?

[The Johnster]

Also, the Hornby Dublo simplex buckeye couplers many people were using when Cyril Freezer drew Minories up in the first place were not so forgiving when you propelled, neither was the stiffer running stock which was prone to derailing or the 'easy lock' underscale size buffers that were common on RTR.  Reverse curves, especially through set track radius points (13 inches then, remember) where overgenerous flangeways for steamroller wheels even to BRSMB standards, were asking for trouble.  The earlier type of Triang tension locks were nowhere near as good as their modern counterparts in this respect either.

 

Of course the sort of stock Freezer envisaged for Minories was the mk1 Hornby Dublo compartment suburbans, and their Triang whatever they were counterparts with 0-6-0, 0-6-2, 2-6-2, or 2-6-4 tanks; there may have been work for the HD EE type 1 or the Metrovick along with the Triang Brush type 2 (we didn't use TOPS numbers back then either); I've just gone through the repertoire of suitable RTR stock in the early 60s, perhaps the Triang Metro-Cammell dmu or Southern emu, or the HD North London emu.  There wasn't anything else (when did Ratio bring out their Midland non-gangwayed kits?).  Non gangwayed compartment suburbans didn't have corridor connections to get out of line, but still would have looked better not running through reverse curves that sharp, which induced terrible derailment provoking sideways forces at the bogie pivots!

 

And the curvature introduced by that superb station throat improves the look no end, giving an illusion of length that isn't there and plenty of atmosphere.  You can almost hear the echo of wheels squealing against the check rails bouncing off those retaining walls, and see the shafts of sunlight slanting down through the smoke and steam; artistry!

 

Minories was, and is, a superb track plan whose merits are subtle; the more you study it the more you appreciate it's apparent simplicity and cleverness.  It is plenty 'operational' enough to keep two operators on their toes at rush hours, but happy being operated off peak by a single person as well, and can have a secret life as a parcels or mails terminus overnight (now we can bring in the big locos).  I have always thought it would be a better layout with a high level goods yard behind it (this infers a nice steep bank up through the tunnel, Kings X style), but I cannot live without goods traffic and am biased.  I cannot get London out of my mind looking at it, there are few places apart from the capital that demand that level of suburban intensity, but of course there is no reason it cannot be transposed anywhere in the UK, or the world, mirror imaged for right hand running.  Douglas, Isle of Man, reminds me a bit of it.

Edited September 1, 2017 by The Johnster

[St Enodoc]

In fact there are 3 very slight reverse curves, one on each platform line, in CJF's original. I reproduced them faithfully in my drawing. They are all quite large radii, though.

 

As I understand it reverse curves become a problem when:

a. Vehicles or bogies have long wheelbases so that you get large outwsings which strains the couplings.

and

b. When curves are canted so that where the two curves join the change in cant twists one vehicle against the next.

 

So maybe not such a problem in models where curved track is not usually canted and where couplers are more forgiving than in the real world?

 

PhilM

c. Where the curves abut each other without a length of straight track in between.

[Pacific231G]

In fact there are 3 very slight reverse curves, one on each platform line, in CJF's original. I reproduced them faithfully in my drawing. They are all quite large radii, though.

 

As I understand it reverse curves become a problem when:

a. Vehicles or bogies have long wheelbases so that you get large outwsings which strains the couplings.

and

b. When curves are canted so that where the two curves join the change in cant twists one vehicle against the next.

 

So maybe not such a problem in models where curved track is not usually canted and where couplers are more forgiving than in the real world?

 

PhilM

The great virtue of Cyril Freezer's Minories plan is that out of the six possible routes through the throat only one of them (up line to platform one) involves an immediate reverse curve. All the other routes do involve a reverse curve but there is at least the length of one turnout between them which significantly reduces lateral displacement between longer coaches. .

 

If you compare that with the normal straight line version of the same arrangement, which also requires the length of four points, you'll see that, while platform one to down and up to platform two, are completely straight. the four other possible routes all involve an immediate reverse curve mostly over a crossover (up to platfrom three can be a bit more gente) and one of them, platform three to down, involves two sets of reverse curves.

 

Although Freezer's very first version of Minories, which was 6ft 8ins x 9 ins. in OO, seems to be based on nominally two foot radius points these are rather sharp though I have seen them  used on the wonderful Horn Lane layout in its main terminus inspired by the Distric and Central Line section of Ealing Broadway,

That seemed OK with short Underground cars but tight for mainline stock- even suburban. 

 

All his later versions, including the 7ft x 1ft version with the single kickback siding, were based on nominally three foot radius points (Peco Medium)  which is a lot more comfortable. I notice that in your drawing you've used small radius points (nominal 2ft) which gives a few more inches on train lengths but does seem to lose the idea of a train flowing through the pointwork.

 

It's very difficult to improve on Freezer's basic throat arrangement plan but, using Peco track, I have found that replacing one of the medium (three foot nominal) radius back to back points with a medium Y (nominal five foot radius) avoids buffer locking on that critical one critical route and also makes the overall S curve through the station a bit less marked. The throat still fits comfortably on a metre long baseboard. 

 

I don't know how much cant (if any?) would be used on a crossover in a slow speed terminus approach but it's supposed to be zero at the point where the curve reverses with a cant transition either side.

[Harlequin]

The great virtue of Cyril Freezer's Minories plan is that out of the six possible routes through the throat only one of them (up line to platform one) involves an immediate reverse curve. All the other routes do involve a reverse curve but there is at least the length of one turnout between them which significantly reduces lateral displacement between longer coaches. .

minorie & straight equiv.jpg

 

If you compare that with the normal straight line version of the same arrangement, which also requires the length of four points, you'll see that, while platform one to down and up to platform two, are completely straight. the four other possible routes all involve an immediate reverse curve mostly over a crossover (up to platfrom three can be a bit more gente) and one of them, platform three to down, involves two sets of reverse curves.

 

Although Freezer's very first version of Minories, which was 6ft 8ins x 9 ins. in OO, seems to be based on nominally two foot radius points these are rather sharp though I have seen them  used on the wonderful Horn Lane layout in its main terminus inspired by the Distric and Central Line section of Ealing Broadway,

Horn Lane - LT Minories throat.jpg

That seemed OK with short Underground cars but tight for mainline stock- even suburban. 

 

All his later versions, including the 7ft x 1ft version with the single kickback siding, were based on nominally three foot radius points (Peco Medium)  which is a lot more comfortable. I notice that in your drawing you've used small radius points (nominal 2ft) which gives a few more inches on train lengths but does seem to lose the idea of a train flowing through the pointwork.

 

It's very difficult to improve on Freezer's basic throat arrangement plan but, using Peco track, I have found that replacing one of the medium (three foot nominal) radius back to back points with a medium Y (nominal five foot radius) avoids buffer locking on that critical one critical route and also makes the overall S curve through the station a bit less marked. The throat still fits comfortably on a metre long baseboard. 

 

I don't know how much cant (if any?) would be used on a crossover in a slow speed terminus approach but it's supposed to be zero at the point where the curve reverses with a cant transition either side.

 

I believe that the first version of Minories was in TT scale on a 6 ft 8in by 9in baseboard hinged in the middle. (See "60 plans for small railways" plan 49S.) This allowed room for all the pointwork to fit on one half-baseboard and for the curve radii to be relatively easy for that small scale. However, even then, the drawing shows reverse curves on entry to all the platforms and this has to be done because of the very limited baseboard width.

 

In the later booklet "60 plans for small locations" the Minories design is updated to a 7ft by 1ft baseboard (still hinged in the middle) and OO scale. (See plan SP35.) The drawing again shows reverse curves on entry to all the platforms. The minimum radius is quoted as "3ft 0in" but I don't think it's possible to fit the pointwork onto just one half-baseboard if medium radius is used throughout.

 

I can't reproduce the original drawings here because they are copyright so I refer you back to the two original booklets, "60 plans for small railways" and "60 plans for small locations". Beware of Google searches which often show later and/or simplified interpretations.

 

PhilM

Edited September 3, 2017 by Harlequin

[St Enodoc]

I believe that the first version of Minories was in TT scale on a 6 ft 8in by 9in baseboard hinged in the middle. (See "60 plans for small railways" plan 49S.) This allowed room for all the pointwork to fit on one half-baseboard and for the curve radii to be relatively easy for that small scale. However, even then, the drawing shows reverse curves on entry to all the platforms and this has to be done because of the very limited baseboard width.

 

In the later booklet "60 plans for small locations" the Minories design is updated to a 7ft by 1ft baseboard (still hinged in the middle) and OO scale. (See plan SP35.) The drawing again shows reverse curves on entry to all the platforms. The minimum radius is quoted as "3ft 0in" but I don't think it's possible to fit the pointwork onto just one half-baseboard if medium radius is used throughout.

 

I can't reproduce the original drawings here because they are copyright so I refer you back to the two original booklets, "60 plans for small railways" and "60 plans for small locations". Beware of Google searches which often show later and/or simplified interpretations.

 

PhilM

Minories first appeared in the April 1957 Railway Modeller and became plan 51 in the first edition of '60 Plans for Small Railways', published in 1958. It was plan 49S in the second edition (1961). All these versions of plan are identical and include scale bars for both 00 and TT3. The 6' 8" x 9" dimensions are for 00, while in TT3 the length is shown as 5' 0" (as one would expect). No dimensions are shown for the points but given the date at which the plan was prepared (several years before the introduction of Streamline and 2 ft radius points) it would not surprise me at all if the plan was based on 3 ft radius Pecoway points, which were 8 inches long from blade tips to 25 mm divergence (for 50 mm track centres) according to my copy of the April 1954 Peco catalogue.

 

There are indeed reverse curves to all platforms - it could hardly be otherwise, unless the throat were on a curve to allow the use of curved points - but the key feature is that as David (Pacific231G) stated above, the Minories concept minimises the number of reverse curves and only one does not have a straight between the two curves. The curve in the platforms themselves on the original plan is to keep the width down - but again there is a straight between the two curves of contrary flexure.

 

The defining feature of Minories, and all its derivatives, is the arrangement of the points in the throat. Any plan without this is simply not Minories, just another form of double-track terminus.

[t-b-g]

Looking at those two plans above, the straight version compared with the "true" Minories, the second one looks more prototypical to me and is very much along the lines of "Mansfield Market Place as built by me. That has 1 in 7 points and I don't experience any problems or poor appearance as the trains snake over them. With points like those, an 8' length is what is really needed, with a 4' board for the station throat and 4' for the platforms. I made the platforms longer to allow 8 coach trains.

 

The Freezer "Minories" drawings also had a reverse curve in the platforms too. So two of the platforms were in approximate alignment with the arrival and departure tracks but with a rather unlikely swing out to the side and then back onto the original alignment. That was always the least satisfactory element of the design as it looked a little unlikely to have happened on the real railways, although I am sure that somebody can come up with an example, I can't think of one.

 

I also wondered why the point for the loco spur wasn't a LH point immediately next to the point of the first cross over. It would have given a longer siding and you have a curve there just waiting for a point to be inserted. 

[St Enodoc]

Looking at those two plans above, the straight version compared with the "true" Minories, the second one looks more prototypical to me and is very much along the lines of "Mansfield Market Place as built by me. That has 1 in 7 points and I don't experience any problems or poor appearance as the trains snake over them. With points like those, an 8' length is what is really needed, with a 4' board for the station throat and 4' for the platforms. I made the platforms longer to allow 8 coach trains.

 

The Freezer "Minories" drawings also had a reverse curve in the platforms too. So two of the platforms were in approximate alignment with the arrival and departure tracks but with a rather unlikely swing out to the side and then back onto the original alignment. That was always the least satisfactory element of the design as it looked a little unlikely to have happened on the real railways, although I am sure that somebody can come up with an example, I can't think of one.

 

I also wondered why the point for the loco spur wasn't a LH point immediately next to the point of the first cross over. It would have given a longer siding and you have a curve there just waiting for a point to be inserted. 

Tony, I wouldn't mind betting that your points are straight through the vees, which will make all the difference.

 

I suspect that CJF was more interested in getting a workable layout in a small space rather than true prototype fidelity. See my post above regarding the reverse curve in the platforms, but I do agree with you regarding the loco spur.

 

Of course, as you know better than anyone, the throat at Buckingham is angled across the baseboard too. Perhaps CJF took that as inspiration? We will probably never know.

[Harlequin]

Minories first appeared in the April 1957 Railway Modeller and became plan 51 in the first edition of '60 Plans for Small Railways', published in 1958. It was plan 49S in the second edition (1961). All these versions of plan are identical and include scale bars for both 00 and TT3. The 6' 8" x 9" dimensions are for 00, while in TT3 the length is shown as 5' 0" (as one would expect). No dimensions are shown for the points but given the date at which the plan was prepared (several years before the introduction of Streamline and 2 ft radius points) it would not surprise me at all if the plan was based on 3 ft radius Pecoway points, which were 8 inches long from blade tips to 25 mm divergence (for 50 mm track centres) according to my copy of the April 1954 Peco catalogue.

 

There are indeed reverse curves to all platforms - it could hardly be otherwise, unless the throat were on a curve to allow the use of curved points - but the key feature is that as David (Pacific231G) stated above, the Minories concept minimises the number of reverse curves and only one does not have a straight between the two curves. The curve in the platforms themselves on the original plan is to keep the width down - but again there is a straight between the two curves of contrary flexure.

 

The defining feature of Minories, and all its derivatives, is the arrangement of the points in the throat. Any plan without this is simply not Minories, just another form of double-track terminus.

 

Thanks for the clarification and correction. I only have the second edition of "small railways" and I had mis-read the scale bars!

 

I'm looking at ways of minimising the number of small radii, still using standard current Peco Streamline geometry, within the 3.5ft by 1ft space of one half-baseboard (and taking the hinge post into account). As a matter of practicality, do you think it's acceptable to locate a set of points right on the edge of a baseboard? That would give a bit more leeway but it doesn;t seem like a good idea to me.

 

PhilM

[t-b-g]

Tony, I wouldn't mind betting that your points are straight through the vees, which will make all the difference.

 

I suspect that CJF was more interested in getting a workable layout in a small space rather than true prototype fidelity. See my post above regarding the reverse curve in the platforms, but I do agree with you regarding the loco spur.

 

Of course, as you know better than anyone, the throat at Buckingham is angled across the baseboard too. Perhaps CJF took that as inspiration? We will probably never know.

 

Quite right. Buckingham has the advantage of not relying on RTR points so has crossovers on continuous curves to avoid buffer locking. The station throat on the present version has all the pointwork crammed into 18* length.

 

We still have to be a bit careful with a couple of the carriage sets, which have to be shunted from platform to platform via the down line rather than the up line, otherwise the buffers lock.

 

With the points available at the time, having a bit of straight track between the curves was probably the difference between having a layout that worked and one that didn't.

 

To my eyes, the simple act of keeping the platforms straight (rather than having an S bend in them) in the second of the two plans above has actually made a an improvement in the look of the layout, without taking away anything from the clever design of the station throat. They may look even better with a really nice gentle curve through them, either along the whole length or just part way along.

[Flying Pig]

That has 1 in 7 points and I don't experience any problems or poor appearance as the trains snake over them.

There's your answer: the pointwork for which Minories was designed was nowhere near as generous as 1 in 7. Even today, Setrack points curve through 22.5° (which if my maths is correct is something ridiculous like 1 in 2.4) at 17 inches radius, and some sectional track in 1957 was likely tighter still. Along with the tight curves, flangeways were wide and wheelsets had loads of sideplay. Minories was a very practical solution for its context, while remaining railwaylike, which is a signature CJF characteristic.