CaptainBiggles

Thanks @Flying Pig, I did notice that about P2. Forgive my ignorance, but how does a "departure-only" platform work IRL? A train needs to be marshalled there so it arrives empty from somewhere - possibly in pieces I assume. But in Tower Pier, where do the coaches come from?

That said (and this is what I love about this thread - the debate!), my query stands: Minories has 2 roads at the RH, 3 at the LH. The bottom half of Tower Pier (as drawn) has 2 RH / 4 LH. Reversing it would tessalate it much more neatly, no?

Loving the photos and plans of Geoff's Tower Pier, I'd not really seen / studied it before. I think the concept of two separate lines is novel and creates interesting operating potential. Noting that the top half is essentially a straight Minories, if it were to retain the natural kink of CJF's original, would the lower part of Tower Pier work betterif reversed? I.e. the two sidings ran along the throat and entry to the station rather than parallel to the platforms. (Geographically St Katherine's Dock is in that direction too tbh!)

Not got Anyrail on this laptop - anyone want to sketch it up for me? ;-)

I wonder if the reason for this forum-based civility is is because Railway Modelling, by its nature, is a research-based hobby? Cycling, photography (et al.) are hobbies where we DO. Railway Modellers RECREATE (and share, and advise...)

Upminster (have I mentioned that already) has the shuttle to Romford where Harlequin’s parcel bay is. It actually isn’t connected to the lines at Upminster, only at the Romford end of its single-track branch, but I can’t see a big problem in imagining it ran “wrong line” for a few hundred meters before branching off. This might also allow the platform to be used for other traffic provided turnaround was fast enough (a round trip to Romford takes 30 mins)

12 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

 

The issue I would have with a Minories / Seironim layout is that Minories represents the Urban end of the line with intense commuting services - would it really only serve one location on outbound services (quickly thinks Fenchurch Street, surely trains go to more than one destination).  In effect being a mirror Seironim represents another intense service commuter station but at the country end, Minories should send trains to more than one location to justify the intensity.

Well, referring back to my previous comment about Minories (Fenchurch St) / Upminster a few pages ago, I stand by Upminster being an ideal Seironim. Upminster is the terminus for the District Line and the push-pull branch to Romford as well as a stopping point to Shoeburyness for the old London, Tilbury & Shoeburyness line. So plenty of urban-style operation & variety. You could either imagine it as a terminus or  even extend round the fourth side of the shed (lifting section for the door) to give a small FY for the LTS trains to emerge from.

I’ve been lurking and enjoying this thread enormously, and other than my brio interjection, it’s finally time to make a few observations / comments

Regarding exhibition vs home operation, I have a small N gauge inglenook that I exhibit (search for Boostfine Yard for its own thread on this site). For me it is a perfect combination of entertaining to operate and (I hope) entertaining to view. The shunting puzzle element is self-explanatory, but I’ve also used a shuttle unit for a DMU that runs across the back. So even when there’s no shunting going on there’s the “surprise” of a DMU appearing almost at random. I’ve also used technology to enable me to operate the layout either from in front (at home) or behind when exhibiting. So the only thing I’d want to add to CJF’s Minories is a inglenook goods yard (in the “dead” space near the front”).

Secondly, I LOVE the concepts regarding Minories - Seironim and despite other’s comments regarding doing something else with the space this is EXACTLY what I’d do if I had space. It meets all my requirements of operational variety and claustrophobic scenery & trackwork. I note that no-one has considered stacking them and using a helix to join them though. Obviously that increases the width to >3’ at one end but the length would be no more than Minories + FY as originally conceived. I also enjoyed the topic drifting to Tilbury but as I live in Hornchurch in Essex I’d consider Seironim as being somewhere like Upminster - the eastern terminus of the district line but significant enough as a through station on the original London, Tilbury & Shoeburyness. It’s not beyond the realms of imagination to link a Minories in East London with a Seironim somewhere out in the ‘burbs.

DeCiduous

Joel

I think those are the ones that Emma posted Mark aren't they? Or am I missing some more?

Last night I spent the evening trying to work out how the Inside Motion works. I think I got there... I'm worried that I'll end up soldering something that needs to move but I reckon it will make more sense when I start getting the parts together on my bench rather than in my head while on the sofa.

Thanks all for your kindness and advice,

Joel

Argh, 5 bidders already!

Thank you all for taking the time to patiently offer help and advice. I spent last night pouring over the instructions for the umpteenth time, and now, with your comments ringing in my ears I understood them for the first time. Thank you. The ScaleFour Forum was also a great read.

I was given the kit by my best friend back in September, and have agreed to give a demo at the upcoming Ilford & West Essex show in April. Perhaps this was a little foolish given my only prior kit-building experience has been a G6 and Brake Van in 7mm from Conoisseur - both of which were built with no compensation and went together very straightforwardly.

I've just ordered the 10" rollers, wheel quartering jig and universal rivet tool from G. W. Models. I plan on getting the Avonside chassis jig and folding bars from Eileen's Emporium at Ally Pally. I already have a temperature controlled soldering iron (second hand Weller unit from eBay, brilliant value!), is there anything else I might need that'll help (I've obviously got a range of hand tools etc).

I'd love to wait for the Ultrascale wheels but they'd not come in time for the show sadly. Thanks for the tips on getting extra pins etc, that would have driven me nuts!. I will be using the Hi-Level gearbox with 54:1 ratio as I prefer to see my locos running smoothly into a terminus and so will probably put a flywheel on there too if there's room.

Thanks to Serron for informing me of the MRJ build guide, I'll set about trying to get hold of a copy. EDIT - just checked online, Cygnet have sold out. Does anyone have a copy or can scan the article for me please?

And to CraigW who asked what gauge - 00 / 16.5 I'm afraid. I'd love to see it to a more prototypical gauge but I've nothing to run it on, nor will I for a very very long time if I go down the EM or P4 route.

I have the Brassmasters Hall and wish to get wheels for it.

Ultrascale very handily sell a "Hall" kit, complete with everything I need, but is currently on a 6 month lead time so that counts them out.

I've been pouring over the Alan Gibson catalogue, trying to work out what I'll need, individual component by individual component. The wheels themselves are easy enough, however, am I right in thinking I'll also need:

Crankpins - there are long and short bushes

Bearings - pin point or top hat or something else entirely?

Counterbalances - I think there are ones included in the Brassmasters kit

Can someone also help me with the (fairly fundamental) decisions I need to make with regards compensation beam and hornblocks please?

Is it a choice between hornblocks and compensation, or do you use both? There appear to be hornblocks in the kit, and refers to something called Flexichas, but also compensation beams and I'm terribly confused. Alan Gibson also sells De Luxe Hornblocks, will these be any better than the Brassmasters ones?

Out of preference I'd like to individually spring each wheel so that it can move up and down independently, i.e. the weight of the loco is set against the compression of the spring. Is this possible? Or am I asking for trouble?

I've not even started on pick-ups yet; am thinking of the Gibson plunger type.

With thanks, in anticipation,

Joel

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.

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

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.

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

Been following this topic with great interest for several reasons.

A) it's awesome

B) I'm also a (young) engineer with dreams of a high-tech layout for the "next generation" of modellers

C) I was at school in Bath for 10 years near the station and know it well.

I am in awe of your work so far & there are so many questions, but one in particular is relevant to my current work. Can you tell me more about your intention to use MERG CBUS & servos as point motors? I'm a member & am using CBUS modules for my points & magnetic decouplers etc, but I'm not convinced there is a working CBUS servo driver without significant modification to the CAN_ACC module.

Keep up the inspirational work!

Joel