Minories 1983

[Jesse]

David, that's would be a clever improment of the original plan, using two large radius points. In N scale, I don't think the difference between medium and large radius Peco Streamline point would be that spectacular, but it'll be interesting to try some different combinatons. 

 

Another question: I'm trying to determine the minimum lenght my platforms should have. 2 and 3-car DMU's won't be any problem to handle, but as I would like to have at least one loco-hauled train, I'm wondering what the shortest prototypical consist one would see in normal service (in the early 1980s). For example a Class 25 + 3 Mk1 coaches. I' think a 4-car train would be about the shortest one would have seen in reality, but am not sure about that. Some advice would be much appreciated.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Jesse

[Flying Pig]

Three coach trains could be seen substituting for DMUs - see for example this thread (particularly the final post).

 

I'm sure there's been a more detailed discussion of DMU replacement workings on RMweb at some time, but I can't find it at the moment.

[CloggyDog]

Short length trains in the 1980s - yes, there were a fair few booked as such, plus portions and the inevitable MU-replacement. (and you could even have a dummy MU to be hauled by a loco)

 

The Mk1 Suburbans had gone by 1977, but sample formations of short (3-coach) rakes of Mk1 or early Mk2 stock do pop up in the various picture books - only yesterday, while researching Class 40 details, I came across a 40 on a CK + SK + BSK formation Newcastle - Edinburgh in 1982.

 

Might be worth joining (if you haven't already) the BR Coaching Stock yahoogroup - the group's dropbox contains scans of many, many Passenger Train Marshalling books which will give you the formations, just pick a region and year!  

 

1982/3 Scottish PTMB

0710 Inverness to Kyle - 2 x TSO + 1 x BG (Mk1)

1900 Arbroath to Dundee 1 x TSO + 1 x BSK (Mk1)

 

1981/2 ER XC PTMB

1028 SO Hull - Scarborough BG + SK + CK (Mk1)

[Jesse]

Thanks Simon and Alan, that's very helpful! No problems there then. 

[Pacific231G]

David, that's would be a clever improment of the original plan, using two large radius points. In N scale, I don't think the difference between medium and large radius Peco Streamline point would be that spectacular, but it'll be interesting to try some different combinatons. 

 

Another question: I'm trying to determine the minimum lenght my platforms should have. 2 and 3-car DMU's won't be any problem to handle, but as I would like to have at least one loco-hauled train, I'm wondering what the shortest prototypical consist one would see in normal service (in the early 1980s). For example a Class 25 + 3 Mk1 coaches. I' think a 4-car train would be about the shortest one would have seen in reality, but am not sure about that. Some advice would be much appreciated.

 

Although very short trains might well have been used it's unlikely that the platforms at any city terminus would have been equally short. If they're going to be that short it's worth trying to conceal that.

I have a pet thery that as a rule of thumb the smaller the scale the less visible shortening you can get away with. It's something to do with what the eye takes in at a single glance and photos of layouts don't always show that. Brian Thomas' Newford, that I referred to in another Minories topic, was scaled up from CJF's original plan and could take a four car EMU. The platform lengths looked fine but while in 0 scale a four car Brighton Belle filling the platform looked long enough, in N it probably wouldn't have. 

 

One feature of the original plan that gets overlooked was the overbridge. That concealed the hinges but it also meant that you could never see the whole length of the platforms at a single glance so their short length  was less obvious. He also ran the platform ends right up to the throat pointwork thus making them that much longer. The other feature of the original plan was that the tracks were all parallel at the left hand end so an optional extra length could easily be added perhaps for exhibtions.

 

The MRC members who built the EM version for the 50th anniversary have added a short concealed section at the buffer ends under the station building and though their version doesn't have the overbridge it is not obvious at a glance how short the platforms are.

 

Though it's not a Minories as such it's worth looking at Geof Ashdowns, EM layout "Tower Pier." There are several pictures of it on RMWEB and he made very effective use of the overbridge idea. The whole layout including the fiddle yard is just three metres long but it looks far larger.  This links to my pictures but plenty of other people have posted their own http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/78492-minories-holborn-viaduct/page-2&do=findComment&comment=1223853

Edited July 14, 2015 by Pacific231G

[CloggyDog]

Agreed! I'd certainly try to make the platforms as long as possible (or use a view-blocking trick like the overbridge) - there's something very cool about a 2 or 3 car train taking up only a small portion of the platform length - as modellers we tend to try and match our trains to fill a platform - whereas in real life many urban terminii were built for seriously long (load 12+) trains. Even the smaller terminii (Fenchurch St, Broad St, Holborn Viaduct) were designed to take 8 or more coaches on each platform. 

 

Now, we modellers rarely have the space to achieve that, but there are various ways and means to maximise platform length (just don't then go filling them up with more and more carriages!)

 

A neat trick, commonly used by space-shy folk, is the 'bitsa station' layout, where clever use of view-blocks (like an overbridge, etc) obscures the reduced platform length such that a 2 or 3 coach train doesn't look out of place: http://www.carendt.com/micro-layout-design-gallery/passenger-lines/

 

Alternately, can you shift the throat to the right, even if it means it encroaches off-scene into the fiddle (indeed, that might be an advantage as less points are required - would Minories work if the right-hand-most cross-over wasn't there, but the up/down roads were simply fed via cassettes?) That would gain you 3 boxes (so, 25cm-ish) of platform length.

The most 'extreme' example I've seen of this is the rather nice Earl's Court layout, which has no visible pointwork - the throat is assumed to be  on the other side of the overbridge (in actuality, the fiddle yard, so the throat isn't modelled at all) There is at least one prototypical example of this - Glasgow Queen Street has a fair bit of the throat off-scene, in the approach tunnel.

 

Although very short trains might well have been used it's unlikely that the platforms at any city terminus would have been equally short. If they're going to be that short it's worth trying to conceal that.

I have a pet thery that as a rule of thumb the smaller the scale the less visible shortening you can get away with. It's something to do with what the eye takes in at a single glance and photos of layouts don't always show that.

 

 

Something on my 'build one day' list is a Broad St-esque urban terminii with perhaps only 2 platforms in use and 4 or more derelict/lifted platforms, ideal for the early-mid-1980s! Almost a diorama, rather than a fully operational layout.

Edited July 14, 2015 by CloggyDeux

[Jesse]

Hi David,

You're right pointing that out and I've been giving it some thoughts as well.

The only platform long enough to hold loco-hauled trains would be platform 1. As in the original design an overbridge is placed over it, concealing the platform partly. The station roof which covers the last bit of the platform will also help.

 

But most importantly, I'm trying to avoid making it look like a 3-car+1 loco train is a tight fit. Platform 1 is actually just long enough for a 4-car loco hauled train, but that would look really cramped. Besides, any shunter or loco hauling the train out of the station would block the throat while coupling.

 

Thinking about it, I could also add a second overbridge, about halfway between the existing one and the tunnel leading to the fiddle yard. That would disguise the train lenght while exiting the station, and perhaps give the layout a more urban feel. It also would make the empty front right area a little less obvious.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Jesse

[bigP]

--

Edited January 30, 2021 by bigP
Deleted

[Jesse]

Wow, so that's an actual train as seen in service? Not just the loco towing the DMU back to the depot?

[bigP]

--

Edited January 30, 2021 by bigP
Deleted

[Karhedron]

Another question: I'm trying to determine the minimum lenght my platforms should have. 2 and 3-car DMU's won't be any problem to handle, but as I would like to have at least one loco-hauled train, I'm wondering what the shortest prototypical consist one would see in normal service (in the early 1980s). For example a Class 25 + 3 Mk1 coaches. I' think a 4-car train would be about the shortest one would have seen in reality, but am not sure about that. Some advice would be much appreciated.

For platforms, the longer the better within the constraints of your space. There are plenty of prototypical short trains for you to model though.

 

 

Parcels trains

 

 

Even TPO

https://www.flickr.com/photos/26357805@N06/4196633783/

[bigP]

--

Edited January 30, 2021 by bigP
Deleted

[BG John]

Even better at creating an illusion of size is an 1883 version, where you can run 10 coach trains of 4-wheelers in the space occupied by two or three modern coaches!

[Clive Mortimore]

Edited

 

 

Something on my 'build one day' list is a Broad St-esque urban terminii with perhaps only 2 platforms in use and 4 or more derelict/lifted platforms, ideal for the early-mid-1980s! Almost a diorama, rather than a fully operational layout.

Ah so you are a follower of the Mortimore layout philosophy.......Almost a diorama, rather than a fully operational layout. Why bother making it work, vistors at exhibitions only look for a few seconds " oh its diesel !"

[Danfilm007]

Just as I was going to start my version of Minories set in the 70s and 80s...  

 

I look forward to seeing progress on yours!

[Pacific231G]

Hi David,

You're right pointing that out and I've been giving it some thoughts as well.

The only platform long enough to hold loco-hauled trains would be platform 1. As in the original design an overbridge is placed over it, concealing the platform partly. The station roof which covers the last bit of the platform will also help.

 

But most importantly, I'm trying to avoid making it look like a 3-car+1 loco train is a tight fit. Platform 1 is actually just long enough for a 4-car loco hauled train, but that would look really cramped. Besides, any shunter or loco hauling the train out of the station would block the throat while coupling.

 

Thinking about it, I could also add a second overbridge, about halfway between the existing one and the tunnel leading to the fiddle yard. That would disguise the train lenght while exiting the station, and perhaps give the layout a more urban feel. It also would make the empty front right area a little less obvious.

You can extend platform one as far as the entrance to the loco siding. Visually that would make it look longer and I do know of places where that was done expressly to accomodate the longest trains. The only part of the throat that would be blocked would be the platform end of the crossover but with a train about to depart from platform one you wouldn't be using that anyway. The loco wouldn't be blocking access between either main line and platforms two or three. The loco hauling the train out would come either from the loco siding, in which case there's no problem, or from the fiddle yard which just means assuming another crossover further out (highly likely in reality) or shunting it via the right hand crossover.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Pacific231G

[Zomboid]

I'd suggest shifting the balance so that the platforms are quite a bit longer than your FY sidings. So if you have space for 4+1 in both, make it so you have platforms for 5+1 and FY space for 3+1. Therefore for the same layout length the station feels a bit more spacious.

Also no 3 car DMUs, just 2s...

[Pacific231G]

I've just been doing some more bench experiments with the Minories throat using off the shelf Peco points and a variety of coaches and found that in the same length I could get an even smoother run than by simply replacing the two centre points of the original design with long ones.

 

This takes advantage of the fact that a 5 foot radius Y (symmetrical) turnout is the same length as a three foot radius left or right hand turnout. I started by using a pair of Ys for the two back to back turnouts but that produced too many reverse curves. By replacing the outer of the two back to backs with a Y and the inner with a five foot radius right hand turnout and making the outermost left hand turnout also five foot radius I saw no  apparent buffer locking even with fairly long coaches and the train did snake rather than lurch through the approach pointwork . 

 

 

I think the improvement is because the most critical route in the original design, the one between the up (inbound) main line and platform one, which involves an immediate reverse curve now has a shallower curve on one side.

 

This approach pointwork fits comfortably onto a single metre long baseboard which was my criterion though I wonder if handmade track could do the same in three feet. Because the platform end of the approach is now at a slight angle, the two main platform tracks can take a very gentle single curve rather than needing an S curve to end up parallel at the left hand end. You also have an angle of about six degrees through the approach so you could have straight platforms at a slight angle. This plan fits into 8 feet by 10 inches and the longest platform  is just under five foot long (57.5 inches)

 

I did have a go at developing this into a more complete layout with a kick back goods yard and a goods entry line from the up main line and in nine feet by sixteen inches could accomodate a maximum platform length of just under six foot which should give scope for reasonably long main line trains.

 

 

.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Pacific231G

[Jesse]

Interesting thoughts there David. I really like the bottom track plan, which should have a lot of interesting operation potential. In the meantime, I've ordered the track material for my 'simple' version. I found out that medium radius N points would be comparable to large scale 00 points (if they were the same scale), so don't expect to see buffer locking problems, also because N scale cars tend to be coupled further apart.

 

One thing I've noticed in CJF's original Minories plans is that two signal gantries are drawn, one for departing trains and another one, located near the entrance from the fiddle yard, problably to indicate the platform track the incoming train would be destined for. As I'm figuring out a way that those signals can only be operated when a correct path for the train is set, I could really use them in that location. But I assume prototypically they would be placed much futher away and not be visible on the layout?

[Mutley]

I've just been doing some more bench experiments with the Minories throat using off the shelf Peco points and a variety of coaches and found that in the same length I could get an even smoother run than by simply replacing the two centre points of the original design with long ones.

 

This takes advantage of the fact that a 5 foot radius Y (symmetrical) turnout is the same length as a three foot radius left or right hand turnout. I started by using a pair of Ys for the two back to back turnouts but that produced too many reverse curves. By replacing the outer of the two back to backs with a Y and the inner with a five foot radius right hand turnout and making the outermost left hand turnout also five foot radius I saw no  apparent buffer locking even with fairly long coaches and the train did snake rather than lurch through the approach pointwork . 

 

Minories basic with Y in centre throat.jpg

 

I think the improvement is because the most critical route in the original design between the up (inbound) main line and platform one which involves an immediate reverse curve now has a shallower curve on one side.

 

This approach pointwork fits comfortably onto a single metre long baseboard which was my criterion though I wonder if handmade track could do the same in three feet. Because the platform end of the approach is now at a slight angle, the two main platform tracks can take a very gently single curve rather than needing an S curve to end up parallel at the left hand end. You also have an angle of about six degrees through the approach so you could have straight platforms at a slight angle. This plan fits into 8 feet by 10 inches and the longest platform  is just under five foot long (57.5 inches)

 

I did have a go at developing this into a more complete layout with a kick back goods yard and a goods entry line from the up main line and in nine feet by sixteen inches could accomodate a maximum platform length of just under six foot which should give scope for reasonably long main line trains.

Minories with Y in centre throat & goods yard.jpg

 

 

.

 

I used large radius Y Points in this way on my Minories layout a few years back and as you say, this makes for a much smoother approach and creates some interesting angles.  Some of the photos about two thirds of the way down the linked page show the arrangement in practice.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Interesting thoughts there David. I really like the bottom track plan, which should have a lot of interesting operation potential. In the meantime, I've ordered the track material for my 'simple' version. I found out that medium radius N points would be comparable to large scale 00 points (if they were the same scale), so don't expect to see buffer locking problems, also because N scale cars tend to be coupled further apart.

 

One thing I've noticed in CJF's original Minories plans is that two signal gantries are drawn, one for departing trains and another one, located near the entrance from the fiddle yard, problably to indicate the platform track the incoming train would be destined for. As I'm figuring out a way that those signals can only be operated when a correct path for the train is set, I could really use them in that location. But I assume prototypically they would be placed much futher away and not be visible on the layout?

 

At a city terminus station, the home signals would be very close to the approach pointwork - as close as possible.

 

The potential issue, since you are putting the layout in a cutting, is whether those signals could be seen by an approaching driver if there is a bridge across the cutting. Not a problem if the bridge is high above the tracks, but that does a less good job of hiding the fiddleyard. With a low bridge the signals would probably be on the other side of the bridge so not on the scenic part of the layout at all. That's why I prefer Minories on a viaduct.

 

There is a get-out clause though. If the first station (or junction) from the terminus was very close, the signal might have to be sited at a location where it was not very visible but provided with a banner repeater on the other side of the bridge.

[Karhedron]

The advantage of a cutting as opposed to a viaduct is that it is much easier to disguise the fiddle yard entrance with a bridge or tunnel mouth. Some people may feel it does not need hiding in this way but I have never liked layouts with a "hole in the sky". You could hide the entrance behind a tall building I guess.

[woodenhead]

I agree, railways on viaducts unless it is in the middle of the country tend to need a lot of buildings around them to bring them into the scenery - Cross St was a very good example though it did suffer a little at the station end on the layout with the hole in the sky that Karhedron refers to as does Stoney Lane Depot (SLT) by Grahame Hedges if you look from the wrong angle.

 

If I take these two examples though, in both cases it was fitting in a through station at one end of the layout that seems to draw attention to the hole in the sky, as Minories is a terminus then the station actually won't be anywhere near the fiddleyard entrance allowing you to make more use of buildings to disguise and obliterate views of the hole whereas in the two examples above in order to see the station the modellers had to make less use of buildings at the front which leads to an undignified entrance/exit view.

[Joseph_Pestell]

The advantage of a cutting as opposed to a viaduct is that it is much easier to disguise the fiddle yard entrance with a bridge or tunnel mouth. Some people may feel it does not need hiding in this way but I have never liked layouts with a "hole in the sky". You could hide the entrance behind a tall building I guess.

 

I was assuming a tall building to hide the exit. Works well for a central London-prototype where buildings (often pubs) are hard up against the railway.

[Pacific231G]

The advantage of a cutting as opposed to a viaduct is that it is much easier to disguise the fiddle yard entrance with a bridge or tunnel mouth. Some people may feel it does not need hiding in this way but I have never liked layouts with a "hole in the sky". You could hide the entrance behind a tall building I guess.

The idea of having a goods depot in front of the approach in my second plan was partly for a goods shed (I didn't show this on my plan) to act as the scene break maybe with a road bridge crossing it. The idea is that we're only seeing one end of a much longer goods yard. In reality, unless the line has a tunnel or a very narrow viaduct close to the end of the platforms, the approach pointwork would probably not settle down to up and down mains until rather further out. Having said that my two favourite cramped site French MLTs, Paris-Bastille and Lyon-St. Paul did have incredbly short approaches thanks to a viaduct and a tunnel respectively. St. Paul even has a scissors crossover in the tunnel and managed to cram in a small but complete goods yard though that closed some time ago. 

 

I used large radius Y Points in this way on my Minories layout a few years back and as you say, this makes for a much smoother approach and creates some interesting angles.  Some of the photos about two thirds of the way down the linked page show the arrangement in practice.

Hi Mutley. I remember your version and always thought it looked good. Your photos are still there but not the plans.

I know you mothballed it back in 2008 but wondered if you've done anything with it since and do you still have its final plan? .

Edited July 17, 2015 by Pacific231G