Theory of General Minories

[Zomboid]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

Then I look at Buckingham and the level and quality of the work. In modern photos it looks a bit rough sometimes. In old photographs and when operating, it looks lovely!

It looks pretty good in photos to me. Except the wiring, I wish you luck with that and I'm happy that it's not my problem to keep it going  

 

I understand that it was built to be operated though, rather than shown off in photos. Just looking at it statically would seem to be missing the point somewhat. And when you're operating any layout, you can't tell how many rivets there are on the water tanks etc.

[t-b-g]

8 minutes ago, whart57 said:

I have this vague recollection of someone who built a layout with two single line termini, but when operating one acted as fiddle yard for the other. That way he could have an OO GWR branch terminus as well as a German HO station. Is that the sort of thing you had in mind?

 

Pretty much but mine would be a bit more compatible. Probably a Midland Railway scene at one end and Great Central one at the other, so both looked OK with the stock. But yes, that general idea!

[Izzy]

16 hours ago, roythebus said:

Just wondering if anyone has tried to plan Minories on templot? someone mentioned Anyrail in an earlier post.

 

Yes, quite a few times. But not an exact replica as it has been in either P4 or 2FS, and of course as the gauge widens so the pointwork gets longer. But for OO an A5 with curvilinear crossing and short model blades gets close to the Peco medium radius geometry. I am sure you could probably replicate all Peco points exactly with the right Templot skills but easing out some of the curvature would be better even at the expense of extra length or shorter platforms etc.

 

Izzy

[Pacific231G]

9 hours ago, Zomboid said:

The quest for visual fidelity above all else seems to be a consequence of relatively affordable highly detailed RTR.

 

It took me a while to work out that I personally wouldn't derive any more enjoyment from a £400 super quality locomotive if the lesser detailed £150 version (I still "need" DCC with sound, the noise is the whole point of an Alco diesel ) would look good enough to be identifiably what it is and reliably pull a train.

 

I'm not sure Setrack would work with Minories though we know small (2ft) radius points can. I think with Setrack, the lurching through the points and the tightness of the bends would be so extreme that you might as well use the straight version of the same throat.  I have seen some convincing layouts based on sectional track . It's all in the modeller's ability to use the various elements to create a scene that the eye accepts.   

I agree about detail and made the decision some time ago to accept the models that are "good enough", which means that they're to scale and give a sufficiently good impression of the real thing but don't need to be hyper detailed. I've got a few more modern models of vehicles that simply weren't available before but they're so finely detailed that I'm half afraid to take them out of the box. I have friends though who've built a collection of the stock they need for their layouts but are now replacing most of them (at enormous expense) with super detailed versions of the same vehicles as they come on the market.

8 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

That is a very valid point. You now see far more in a photo of a model, often many times life size on a big screen, than you can watching it from 3ft away on a layout at home or at a show. I have heard people say that they have done certain things so that a model looks good when photographed. I am prepared to admit guilt in that respect from time to time myself!

 

Then I look at Buckingham and the level and quality of the work. In modern photos it looks a bit rough sometimes. In old photographs and when operating, it looks lovely!

Definitely, and that also applies to the Madder Valley which used even earlier materials than those available to Peter Denny. In photographs you notice the printed brick paper, the gaps beneath buildings and the dyed sawdust but when you look at it you see a  wonderful three dimensional painting of a light railway in an idyllic  setting and a harbour town you long to visit. 

Even on my own layout I've noticed that the code 100 track looks far too heavy in photos but I'm just not that conscious of it when looking at it and many times at shows I've thought that a rural terminus was built with code 75 only to be told that it was 100 which is obvious when looking at my photos later on but not when actually seeing it.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Pacific231G
grammar

[t-b-g]

58 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I think with Setrack, the lurching through the points and the tightness of the bends would be so extreme that you might as well use the straight version of the same throat though I've seen some very convincing layouts based on sectional track. It's all in the modeller's ability to use the various elements to create a scene that the eye accepts.   

I agree about detail and made the decision some time ago to accept the models that are "good enough", which means that they're to scale and give a sufficiently good impression of the real thing but don't need to be hyper detailed. I've got a few more modern models of vehicles that simply weren't available before but they're so finely detailed that I'm half afraid to take them out of the box. I have friends though who've built a collection of the stock they need for their layouts but are now replacing most of them (at enormous expense) with super detailed versions of the same vehicles as they come on the market.

Definitely, and that also applies to the Madder Valley which used even earlier materials than those available to Peter Denny. In photographs you notice the printed brick paper, the gaps beneath buildings and the dyed sawdust but when you look at it you see a  wonderful three dimensional painting of a light railway in an idyllic  setting and a harbour town you long to visit. 

Even on my own layout I've noticed that the code 100 track looks far too heavy in photos but I'm just not that conscious of it when looking at it and many times at shows I've thought that a rural terminus was built with code 75 only to be told that it was 100 which is obvious when looking at my photos later on but not when actually seeing it.

 

Couldn't agree more! I have seen layouts at shows that I have really had to look at closely at to see if it is Code 100 or 75. Decent work in alignment, ballasting and painting makes all the difference. I would put Grantham in that category. It looks so much better in the flesh but the track sticks out a bit in photos. I saw photos of the Madder Valley layout long before I got to see it for myself and thought it looked quite rough in certain respects. Seeing it at Pendon it was like looking at a lovely old watercolour painting, just as you describe.

 

I find myself sometimes doing exactly the same thing. Worrying about how something would look in a blown up megapixel digital image, full screen on a big monitor. Perhaps I need to rethink my own approach! 

Edited June 9, 2020 by t-b-g
Spelling

[Nearholmer]

Anyway, who is/was this General Minories, and what was his theory?

[t-b-g]

19 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Anyway, who is/was this General Minories, and what was his theory?

 

He was in the same unit with Private Function, Corporal Punishment and Major Incident.

[Zomboid]

37 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I find myself sometimes doing exactly the same thing. Worrying about how something would look in a blown up megapixel digital image, full screen on a bog monitor. Perhaps I need to rethink my own approach! 

There's nothing wrong with that approach if you enjoy the process and result. If you find yourself stressing over it and the whole thing becomes a chore then that's not really the point of a hobby.

 

I have a loco that I'm a bit scared of taking out of the box - it's not hyper detailed, it's a moderately detailed model of an American steam engine, which means there are pipes and things everywhere on the outside. And whenever I do take it out I break something off. Plus it's massively underpowered, about 8x 4 axle freight cars is its limit, which is fine in itself as huge trains aren't that important to me, but when I use it I need to switch cuts of 12-14 cars, and it'll just pointlessly spin is wheels until I rescue it with a diesel or give it a prod... But I digress.

[Pacific231G]

Having come up with a slightly modified throat that works for my stock I've come to what may be an insurmountable problem. The room I have available is 4m long and the throat fits comfortable into 1 metre, giving 1.5m for both the fiddle yard and the platforms. However, the minimum train I think I can believe in is a loco, a fourgon D (passenger brake van normally on the front of French rapides in Ep III) and four coaches. Unfortunately, with all but my shortest locos that seems to be 1.65m which is just too long. Unforunately,  I can't use an L because of the position of the door and airing cupboard.  T

he answer may be to have a half metre extension to the basic two metres with all the pointwork and station buidling with an optional one metre version to set up where there's more room - like downstairs-  and do the same with the fiddle yard. A two metre long train would be fine.

My experiments continue and here is the main 2m section laid out on  two boards (not the actual boards- this is a very useful folding board for trying out plans) 

 

I laid out the modified throat on the centre of the boards so I could test it with pairs of coaches

but here it is mocked.

All the track are  square to the boards at each end so extensions could be plain track. The two sidings

would come to the end of the main board entering a goods shed in the final foot or so to act as a view blocker to the fiddle yard entrance and an overall roof the length of the station building plus thhe usual overbridge may hide the shortness of trains.

Anyway this is a train that would fit fairly easily

Just for fun I laid out a train you should recognise. 

If you've seen Murder on the Orient Express (the Movie) the loco is different but the surprisingly short formation of baggage car, sleeper, restaurant car and Pullman is what you were admiring.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Pacific231G

[KeithHC]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Anyway, who is/was this General Minories, and what was his theory?

 

Are he was a retired Indian army engineer who started up a railway consultancy based in Much Minding in the Marsh. He designed railway termini using the same design. There are examples in the UK and France maybe we will find others as well.

 

Anyone want to set up a General Minories society.........

 

Keith

With appologise to Col. Stephens  

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

Having come up with a slightly modified throat that works for my stock I've come to what may be an insurmountable problem. The room I have available is 4m long and the throat fits comfortable into 1 metre, giving 1.5m for both the fiddle yard and the platforms. However, the minimum train I think I can believe in is a loco, a fourgon D (passenger brake van normally on the front of French rapides in Ep III) and four coaches. Unfortunately, with all but my shortest locos that seems to be 1.65m which is just too long. Unforunately,  I can't use an L because of the position of the door and airing cupboard.  T

he answer may be to have a half metre extension to the basic two metres with all the pointwork and station buidling with an optional one metre version to set up where there's more room - like downstairs-  and do the same with the fiddle yard. A two metre long train would be fine.

My experiments continue and here is the main 2m section laid out on  two boards (not the actual boards- this is a very useful folding board for trying out plans) 

 

I laid out the modified throat on the centre of the boards so I could test it with pairs of coaches

but here it is mocked.

All the track are  square to the boards at each end so extensions could be plain track. The two sidings

would come to the end of the main board entering a goods shed in the final foot or so to act as a view blocker to the fiddle yard entrance and an overall roof the length of the station building plus thhe usual overbridge may hide the shortness of trains.

Anyway this is a train that would fit fairly easily

Just for fun I laid out a train you should recognise. 

If you've seen Murder on the Orient Express (the Movie) the loco is different but the surprisingly short formation of baggage car, sleeper, restaurant car and Pullman is what you were admiring.

 

You pretty much have the same situation I had which led to the design for the Sheffield District Railway version with the two point long approach. I was willing to sacrifice the facility to arrive and leave from all platforms in return for a 4-6-0 and 5 bogie carriages. I was able to keep the station at 8ft in total and only had to extend the space in the fiddle yard (yet to be decided) from 4ft to 4ft 3ins. 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

2 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Having come up with a slightly modified throat that works for my stock I've come to what may be an insurmountable problem. The room I have available is 4m long and the throat fits comfortable into 1 metre, giving 1.5m for both the fiddle yard and the platforms. However, the minimum train I think I can believe in is a loco, a fourgon D (passenger brake van normally on the front of French rapides in Ep III) and four coaches. Unfortunately, with all but my shortest locos that seems to be 1.65m which is just too long. Unforunately,  I can't use an L because of the position of the door and airing cupboard.  T

he answer may be to have a half metre extension to the basic two metres with all the pointwork and station buidling with an optional one metre version to set up where there's more room - like downstairs-  and do the same with the fiddle yard. A two metre long train would be fine.

My experiments continue and here is the main 2m section laid out on  two boards (not the actual boards- this is a very useful folding board for trying out plans) 

 

I laid out the modified throat on the centre of the boards so I could test it with pairs of coaches

but here it is mocked.

All the track are  square to the boards at each end so extensions could be plain track. The two sidings

would come to the end of the main board entering a goods shed in the final foot or so to act as a view blocker to the fiddle yard entrance and an overall roof the length of the station building plus thhe usual overbridge may hide the shortness of trains.

Anyway this is a train that would fit fairly easily

Just for fun I laid out a train you should recognise. 

If you've seen Murder on the Orient Express (the Movie) the loco is different but the surprisingly short formation of baggage car, sleeper, restaurant car and Pullman is what you were admiring.

 

53 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

You pretty much have the same situation I had which led to the design for the Sheffield District Railway version with the two point long approach. I was willing to sacrifice the facility to arrive and leave from all platforms in return for a 4-6-0 and 5 bogie carriages. I was able to keep the station at 8ft in total and only had to extend the space in the fiddle yard (yet to be decided) from 4ft to 4ft 3ins. 

Such a shame!   Like t-b-g I wouldn’t compromise on train length any further - as you say, it’s believable.  The other problem is that the train will only travel a very short distance whatever you do: a 1.65m train on a 4m board only has 0.7m “travel space” left.

 

I have seen some very effective micro-layouts that deal with this problem by keeping the focus on the action at the concourse end of the platform (I’d want to keep that lovely station building as it is too).  The two basic options seem to be:

 

1.  Redesign the throat so it’s not Minories per t-b-g and / or:

2.  Move the scenic divide forwards so the second crossover disappears under your bridge (or whatever) and is in the fiddle yard.  It then depends on your preferred type of fiddle yard - in micro-layouts, cassettes are very popular, can you steal back any space there?
 

Taking redesign a further step forwards, you could also have multiple entry points from your fiddle yard, thereby doing away with more of the points (may be better than narrowing the station by taking out tracks).  Just a thought, Keith.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

4 hours ago, Zomboid said:

when I use it I need to switch cuts of 12-14 cars, and it'll just pointlessly spin is wheels until I rescue it with a diesel or give it a prod... 

 

'What a Thoroughly Useless Engine', said the Fat Controller, and went to fetch Diesel. 

[Pacific231G]

2 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

Such a shame!   Like t-b-g I wouldn’t compromise on train length any further - as you say, it’s believable.  The other problem is that the train will only travel a very short distance whatever you do: a 1.65m train on a 4m board only has 0.7m “travel space” left.

 

I have seen some very effective micro-layouts that deal with this problem by keeping the focus on the action at the concourse end of the platform (I’d want to keep that lovely station building as it is too).  The two basic options seem to be:

 

1.  Redesign the throat so it’s not Minories per t-b-g and / or:

2.  Move the scenic divide forwards so the second crossover disappears under your bridge (or whatever) and is in the fiddle yard.  It then depends on your preferred type of fiddle yard - in micro-layouts, cassettes are very popular, can you steal back any space there?
 

Taking redesign a further step forwards, you could also have multiple entry points from your fiddle yard, thereby doing away with more of the points (may be better than narrowing the station by taking out tracks).  Just a thought, Keith.

Thanks Keith

This is getting a bit off Minories but t he best example IMHO of a "bitsa" terminus is Terry Trew's Earl's Court

 

That is though a pure exhibition layout to show trains that simply run in and out.  That's OK if you just want to exhibit trains but not if you want to operate them. I also recall a layout representing the end of a German terminus with locos coming off trains- you only saw one coach-  and shunting round in the loco layover, end of the releasing loop area between the end of the platdorms and the buffers 

 

For an exhibition layout I think it's fine to use tricks like missing out the final crossover but for a home layout I want to operate it fully. I've looked at a few single track throats and this O gauge one by an E.A. Beet* from MRN in 1947 was quite appealing. particularly if the bays are lengthened. I'm not sure what the kick back siding from the upper bay was for.

 

 I think the downside of single track terminus like this is that the train departs, goes through one or two sets of points and is immediately in the fiddle yard. Having said that though  one of the layouts I've most enjoyed operating has been Giles Barnabe's Puerto Paeso, a fairly simple single track On30 "city" terrminus with three platforms, a two road goods yard and, importantly in term of operation, a kickback to a harbour branch.  As with Minories, there's no run round and locos are released by a station pilot or another loco  drawing back the train. Though NG the terminus is the end of the imaginary Island's "main line" with important trains from two companies and quite a lot of freight movements in and out of the harbour.

One possible approach to my lack of length might be to model the throat as one scene and the concourse end as another so getting full operation but missing out the middle bit of trains so you never see just how short they are in a single glance. That's where my own experiments seem to be leading and seeing my Murderous Orient Express on my mock up has quite inspired me.

 

 

*Ernest Beet (1904-1997) was a schoolmaster at Pangbourne Nautical College until he retired in 1969 and he used his layout, which represented an extension of the Windermere line to Ambleside,  as a teamwork exercise for the boys - running trains to a strict timetable controlled by the signals .

He was also  a well known amateur astronomer and a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society. After he retired from teaching became the Astronomy Correspondent for The Times for eighteen years.

 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

One possible approach to my lack of length might be to model the throat as one scene and the concourse end as another so getting full operation but missing out the middle bit of trains so you never see just how short they are in a single glance. That's where my own experiments seem to be leading and seeing my Murderous Orient Express on my mock up has quite inspired me.

 

You appear to be in good company. Minories as drawn by CJF is a series of scenes, broken up by the halfway bridge and a shortish train shed.  This is an aspect of Minories I don't think we've commented on much but it may be just as important as the actual track plan in creating the atmosphere of the layout.

Exposing the buffer ends as a focal point may well be your original contribution, however. 

 

I think Iain Rice suggested a similar approach to disguising the length of trains somewhere or other, his idea being that you would never see both ends of the train at the same time, and while I'm namedropping, Chris Pendlenton described his approach on North Shields as "modelling the interesting ends of things".  

[Keith Addenbrooke]

While I don't need a Minories, the positioning of Pacific231G's French Station building gave me an idea for a US Minories using the Walther's Union Station Building.  Using Peco Code 83 Track I can get the throat into a 4' length and the whole plan onto an 8' x 1' board, though I've kept a 2' board width to include the Station Terminal.

 

 

Assuming 12" for an 85' Passenger Car and slightly less for an engine, then Track 1 ideally needs to be 5' long, for 4-car + Engine Trains.  Buffer locking disappears, though throw over is a problem with such long cars, but I'd need an extra foot in length to go to #8 switches even if just for the 'back-to-back' right hand switches.  Sticking with #6 switches for the station throat I can just about fit it all into 8' if I trim 0.75" off my end pieces (making Track 1, which is for Transcontinental named trains 59.25" long - if I have a single F7 as my power I should be OK).

 

Track 2 is for local and commuter trains, while head end baggage and mail cars are switched out to Track 3.  I have swapped the Engine Track over to the kickback, as I couldn't figure out how to switch the head end cars if I put the REA or Mail station there.

 

This gives me room for a Commissary to service dining cars and Pullmans to add to the operation.  There is no freight traffic - this is a downtown Union Station.  If I imagine it as a stub-end terminal where long-distance trains back in under the watchful eye of a brakeman then I don't have the problem of engines getting trapped, even if it will look unusual to my UK eyes.

 

I could be tempted.

 

Keith.

Edited October 7, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos

[whart57]

The Minories approach does allow the modelling of some massive city termini. Not the whole station of course, but many large stations were cobbled together over time. Take this example of London Victoria, this is an early map from the 1860s when the station was new

 

 

Victoria was the terminus of the West End and Crystal Palace Railway, a semi-independent company owned by the LBSCR with the GWR,  LCDR and others also having an interest. As a result it is actually two stations side by side, the LCDR (later SECR) station to the East and the Brighton station to the West. There was effectively a further divide on the Brighton side with Brighton trains and Portsmouth trains occupying different platforms. Even today Victoria is three stations, a station for Kent, a station for South London suburban lines and a station for lines to the South Coast.

 

So a while ago I drew out what the westernmost section would look like as a Minories style layout

 

 

I say Minories-style because obviously it doesn't contain the full CJF features. The dotted line incidentally is a scenic feature, the start of the other fourteen platforms

 

Of course for most of those into 19th century railways the Eastern side with its broad and standard mixed-gauge tracks would be far more interesting. The GWR did continue to run into Victoria up to WW1.

[Joseph_Pestell]

5 minutes ago, whart57 said:

The Minories approach does allow the modelling of some massive city termini. Not the whole station of course, but many large stations were cobbled together over time. Take this example of London Victoria, this is an early map from the 1860s when the station was new

 

 

 

Not "massive", but London has another station that is in effect two Minories, side by side: Charing Cross.

 

I have always found it rather surprising that it was considered worthwhile there to build an extra bridge to accommodate carriage sidings.

[JohnR]

15 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Anyway, who is/was this General Minories, and what was his theory?

 

He is the very Model of a modern image Major General. 

[Zomboid]

47 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

While I don't need a Minories, the positioning of Pacific231G's French Station building gave me an idea for a US Minories using the Walther's Union Station Building.  Using Peco Code 83 Track I can get the throat into a 4' length and the whole plan onto an 8' x 1' board, though I've kept a 2' board width to include the Station Terminal.

 

 

Assuming 12" for an 85' Passenger Car and slightly less for an engine, then Track 1 ideally needs to be 5' long, for 4-car + Engine Trains.  Buffer locking disappears, though throw over is a problem with such long cars, but I'd need an extra foot in length to go to #8 switches even if just for the 'back-to-back' right hand switches.  Sticking with #6 switches for the station throat I can just about fit it all into 8' if I trim 0.75" off my end pieces (making Track 1, which is for Transcontinental named trains 59.25" long - if I have a single F7 as my power I should be OK).

 

Track 2 is for local and commuter trains, while head end baggage and mail cars are switched out to Track 3.  I have swapped the Engine Track over to the kickback, as I couldn't figure out how to switch the head end cars if I put the REA or Mail station there.

 

This gives me room for a Commissary to service dining cars and Pullmans to add to the operation.  There is no freight traffic - this is a downtown Union Station.  If I imagine it as a stub-end terminal where long-distance trains back in under the watchful eye of a brakeman then I don't have the problem of engines getting trapped, even if it will look unusual to my UK eyes.

 

I could be tempted.

 

Keith.

Interesting idea. I'm not sure how such things were operated, but I'd expect most trains would arrive and be taken away for servicing by a switcher. If you're representing transcontinental trains then a turntable or return loop is probably necessary unless you want to spend the whole time handling your passenger cars, as the baggage cars were always on the front and the observation cars at the rear, and they along with single F units need turning. These days of course they actually use balloon loops and wyes to reverse the whole train (check out Miami Amtrak on Google earth, you'd get laughed out of the exhibition if you showed up with a model like that).

 

Obviously it does work with right hand running as all tracks can get to all other tracks, but it's it optimised, or would it be better mirrored?

 

But you could authentically run very short trains. I'm sure I've seen things like an Alco PA, a baggage car and a single coach forming some kind of passenger train.

[Talltim]

On 07/06/2020 at 18:35, Pacific231G said:

The plans for the actual Bastille terminus were mine so, to save you all from hunting for it, here it is again (I actually drew it in Xtrkcad -it must have taken me ages!)

I drew the final arrangement of the real station for my articles about it in CM (and the French RMF) with Peco large radius points and, rather to my surprise,  it came out almost identical in size. Apart from one single slip at the end, the whole throat was laid out with tan 0.13 (#7.5) left and right hand points designated short and long (in a way reminiscent of Peco's small and medium radius points using the same crossing)  Those were the sharpest of SNCF's standard points and normally only used for sidings so it was essential to avoid any reverse curves and there were none.

 

I'm fascinated by Bastille and it's one of the reasons for my great interest in Minories.

 

Both were exercises in getting a complex multi platform throat into  a ridiculously short space. In Bastille's case that meant being able to connect any two of the five platfoms simultaneously to both up and down lines, something that can be done with Minories' three platforms by adding a track between the up line and platform three.

Like the original conception of Minories, Bastille was operated exclusively by tank locos hauling almost identical trains and,until its final six or seven years when push-pull trains were used, operation in the rush hours used turnover locos on a massive scale.  with locos arriving with trains or ECS workings from the carriage sidings a couple of miles down the line taking out the next train but three about twenty five minutes later. It was a relentless cycle where five trains departed from platforms 5 to1 in turn in the space of ten minutes. As each train left an incoming train would take their place within about five minutes while locos worked their way to the front of their next train and the whole cycle was then repeated. Push-pull working must have been a doddle in comparison!

The tightness of the pointwork did mean that the corridor connections were removed from the ex Reichsbahn bogie coaches used from soon after the war until the push-pull stock arrived in about 1963. The station closed at the end of 1969 when most of the line became part of the electrified RER. 

 

There was an even more length constrained commuter terminus in Lyon. St. Paul also had five platforms but also a goods yard (it's three or four and a bus park now)  but it was never as intensively worked as Bastille. In any case the PLM cheated by putting a scissors crossover inside the start of the long tunnel that constrained its lenth. It's not a bad prototype though.

 

—

My introduction to Bastille was this photo. You don’t get much better

Paris Bastille France September 1969
by Loose_grip_99

[Zomboid]

18 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

But you could authentically run very short trains. I'm sure I've seen things like an Alco PA, a baggage car and a single coach forming some kind of passenger train.

Not exactly what I had in mind, but this isn't very long

https://images.app.goo.gl/TcZcHTWCnPVkuieF7

[Satan's Goldfish]

13 hours ago, KeithHC said:

 

Are he was a retired Indian army engineer who started up a railway consultancy based in Much Minding in the Marsh. He designed railway termini using the same design. There are examples in the UK and France maybe we will find others as well.

 

Anyone want to set up a General Minories society.........

 

Keith

With appologise to Col. Stephens  

 

I'm slowly working on a Swiss meter gauge example, but it's not had any attention for a while. The throat point work is straight rather than the usual S bend and it will be interesting to see what the throw of the longest carriages is like HOm when track is eventually laid. So it's not true Minories, but inspired by it.

 

As train lengths are quite short, my solution for the fiddleyard is a lift off 4 track turntable that's narrower than the board width so the tracks can still be lined up if it's positioned against a wall, and turned completely by lifting it off (like a big cassette).

 

 

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

1 hour ago, JohnR said:

 

He is the very Model of a modern image Major General. 

 

That's easy for you to say...

[Pacific231G]

7 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

You appear to be in good company. Minories as drawn by CJF is a series of scenes, broken up by the halfway bridge and a shortish train shed.  This is an aspect of Minories I don't think we've commented on much but it may be just as important as the actual track plan in creating the atmosphere of the layout.

Exposing the buffer ends as a focal point may well be your original contribution, however. 

 

I think Iain Rice suggested a similar approach to disguising the length of trains somewhere or other, his idea being that you would never see both ends of the train at the same time, and while I'm namedropping, Chris Pendlenton described his approach on North Shields as "modelling the interesting ends of things".  

That's one reason for sticking with a double track throat. There are plenty of single track termini that handled main line trains especially in France though my personal favourites also include Ft. Wiliam old and Kingswear. The catch is that they're (almost) never in urban settings where natural scene dividers allow you to disguise the short length of trains. I agree with you that in squeezing a main line quart into a branch line sized pintpot Cyril Freezer recognised that and took full advantage of it so it's a little surprising how few layouts based on or inspired by Minories have done the same. 

 

If you don't see anything from the head end at the same time as the last vehicle then I think the suspension of disbelief is pretty good. That was one reason for looking at the Murder on the Orient Express formaton. If you watch the train departure scene in the film,  the whole thing from the locomotive's headlight coming on to the tail lamp disappearing into the distance is a single continuous panning shot. You think you've seen a far longer train than the baggage car and three carriages that was its real formation.  It is of course far easier for a film director to control what you see than it is for a layout designer but there is scope.