Harlequin

Island platform: Minimum 48mm but you can go smaller if you get special dispensation from the BoT. From platform edge to OO track centre: ~20mm. 21mm is safer and you'll need to have even more spacing where the platforms curve. Single sided platform: Minimum 24mm between the platform edge and any wall or fence.

Like a lot of us, I have long been intrigued by C J Freezer's famous design for a small double-track terminus station, "Minories". I have noticed that when it is referenced in other designs it is usually modified, lengthened, bent and often changed so much that the resulting track plan really has nothing to do with Freezer's original concept. So when I was looking for a small, achievable project - something portable that I could make with the materials I had to hand - it seemed like a good idea to make a Minories layout that adheres very closely to one of the original plans. I'm going to use Plan SP35 from 60 Plans for Small Locations because it's one of the smallest, most basic versions and I've already honed the plan into a good state: (I know about the reverse curves in the top platforms and the slightly awkward joggle into the bottom Platform - they are authentic features.) I created a 3D model of the box in Sketchup and I'm using it in the workshop to guide me: The basic structure is plywood H girders with bracing underneath and timber frames at the ends to provide more solidity where the boxes need to be joined, hinged and/or handled. After a few days cutting here are all the parts ready for assembly: I have got some ideas about region and era using modern RTR locos and rolling stock that should work well. More of that later. * I'm sorry for the cheesy title! When I can think of something better I will change it, I promise!

This was my take on a double-track fiddle yard for Minories that folds up into the same volume as the folded Minories:

It's a nice idea in principle. Maybe there's some other solution. I was going to suggest a Minories sub-forum but I can see that deciding what is and is not a Minories layout fit for inclusion could get very contentious...

There is no doubt that the current state of track planning software could be hugely improved and it's great to see some creative new ideas, but: Sorry but I have the feeling that would be a gimmick rather than a truly useful tool because it wouldn't be able to produce good results reliably. And it would work equally well for a mouse as as the other inputs devices you mention, wouldn't it? (BTW: Touchscreen interfaces are inherently unsuitable for doing precise design work because you finger obscures the very point your are trying to manipulate and accurate positioning is impossible.) Sorry again but apart from being extremely difficult to create unique layouts that work well heuristically, that approach is coming at the problem from the wrong angle for good design. Ideally, one should design baseboards to fit the layout, not the other way round. Sorry to be a killjoy in response to your first post!

It might get confusing if we all post updates about different layout builds in the same thread so my suggestion would be to create separate threads in Layout Topics for each layout. This is the normal way of doing things and layout topics often contain chat and links to other layouts by like-minded people. Perfect for a little Minories club. Keep this topic for the design and the “Theory of General Minories”.

Hi David, I measure the inner radius of curved points as 28in, 711mm. If you look at the drawing you'll see that it doesn't lengthen the throat. It's not intended to with help throwover - it just replaces a curve-straight-curve route with a continuous curve. The curved point does make a small difference to the length of Platform 1. You can see exactly what difference by comparing the three drawings in my post. For my purposes it's not a problem and the platform ramp starts near the toe anyway so moving it further out wouldn't make any real difference. Yes indeed! I used exactly that trick in Pacific Terminus but here I'm keen to keep the inbound and outbound tracks parallel until the final crossover and I think the greater radius of the LargeY would make that difficult in the space available. This is another advantage of using a drawing program rather than track planning software because I'm effectively doing the same as you but on the computer screen. I sometimes lay a turnout down where it looks like it might fit and then adjust the trackwork around it. For those readers who might be bored by all this virtual planning, you should know that I have started building!

It might be nice but there's not enough room I'm afraid. There's a baseboard joint at 3ft 6in, indicated by the thin white line.

There's almost a suggestion of condensation on the inside of the windows on a cold morning. You can imagine a young lad drawing a "Chad" on the glass with his finger. (Chad was created in 1938 according to Wikipedia - just about within period. Phew!)

No matter how final you think a plan is, if you leave it long enough you'll be able to find improvements! This was my previous SP35 Minories essay (V19): But, as highlighted, the top elbow curve seems a bit too sharp and there's a small radius turnout in the reverse curve into P1. I'm sure this was pointed out before but for whatever reason it remained in the design. I realised that I could fix these problems and one or two other minor details like this (V20a): The elbow is smoother, the crossovers are all Medium (although this is still not ideal for bogie stock as David has demonstrated) and I have banished one Small turnout from the design. The angles and small curves needed to achieve this are quite subtle! Then I realised that the straight Medium at the end of P1 looked rather ugly amongst the curves all around it and wondered if a curved turnout might improve the flow (V20b): The angles and curves in this one are fiendish and the elbow curve is a bit tighter again but I feel the inbound and outbound tracks flow together much better.

Was that using modern RTR locos? Steam locos? How long were the trains?

Thanks! It was clearly an operator's layout with scenery playing a minor role. It's interesting to see the designer really thinking in 3D and utilising the full volume of the room.

Was this layout ever published anywhere? Might there be some info about it on the web?

I was thinking mainly about helices within the typically restricted spaces of British layouts and as a contained sub-part of the layout rather than being wound around and through the layout. I should have said that in the OP. Obviously there's some maths and basic physics involved here but I have the feeling that many builders don't think about those things and just go ahead and build something that fits in their space before finding out whether it works. Thanks @t-b-g. That wonderful photos says something interesting: it may be that only a small increase in radius makes a big difference to the feasibility of a helix because it will have a big effect on the gradient. I think that particular helix looks like about 3ft radius. Does that sound about right? @34theletterbetweenB&D I'm very open to changing the parameters. Why do you think it's important to allow for stopping and restarting on the helix? That would seem to make the test more difficult to achieve.

Whenever I see a helix being proposed in a layout design my immediate reaction is, "Oh dear. Never mind. Maybe your next layout will work..." But is that reaction justified? Can a helix ever work successfully? What's your opinion? My negative opinion of them is partly based on personal experience of a ~300° double-track helix on an old layout. It was about 600mm radius and rose about 150mm if I'm remembering it correctly. My Dad and I thought it was a really clever solution when we designed it but in practice it limited the trains that could actually make the climb up to the big station on the top level and contributed to the ultimate demise of the layout. I'm also put off by the dubious "solutions" to traction problems that many people resort to, such as magnetic systems, because of all the new problems that seem to come with them. What's your experience? Have you got personal experience that would help answer this question? Tales of both Triumphs and Disasters are welcome! What does it take to make a helix work in practice? I wonder if we could establish the minimum parameters of a working helix for two distinct scenarios: Helix Scenario A: Steam traction with 6 or 8 driven (coupled) wheels, hauling 8 bogie coaches or 24 non-bogie wagons. Helix Scenario B: "Modern image" traction with 4 or 8 driven wheels spread across one or two locos or power cars, hauling 8 bogie coaches or 24 non-bogie wagons. Let's assume that we are talking about current British 4mm OO models in both cases. *Without any third party traction assistance. To control some other variables let's say that the train should be running at 50% throttle at the bottom of the helix, that the driver can ensure there's no wheel slip in the driving wheels and the helix "works" if the train can just crawl out of the top (or better). Edit: I am thinking mainly about helices within the typically restricted spaces of British layouts and as a contained sub-part of the layout rather than being wound around and through the layout.

I can't fit the large Y in my plan to smooth the route into platform 3: You can see that it gets perilously close to the hinge column and fouls the baseboard joint. You might say, "Ah but you've still got your 3° turn in the ladder" but if I remove that and go for Medium radius turnouts throughout: You can see that the line is now too far away from the hinge post and either makes platform 3 shorter or thinner or will move all the other platforms up to compensate - and still the final turnout, whether Medium or Y, fouls the baseboard joint. When space is this tight, and there are obstructions like the hinges to take into account, planning has to be precise! I think that having the loco spur come off the diagonal is more aesthetically pleasing than making a boring straight connection to the outbound line. It curves in the same way as the platform lines beside it. In the Introduction to 60 Plans for Small Locations CJF says, "...the pointwork is set out to use Peco Setrack and Streamline products...", strongly implying that they would be used as-is, so trimming turnouts feels like cheating when trying to reproduce a CJF original plan.

This is the best I could achieve in trying to reproduce SP35 in unmodified Streamline parts (a combination of small and medium radius turnouts): The problem with using a small Y anywhere in the ladder is that it turns one of the routes too much to comfortably fit the formation within the 1ft width limit. The reverse curves in the platform lines have quite large radii so they shouldn't be a problem. They could be removed by allowing the platforms to be diagonal but would that be diverging from the Minories concept too much?

I must admit I imagined the connection being angled so that cassettes don't project so much into the room. If the area is fully scenic then the scenic break isn't needed and the station could perhaps extend into the existing layout area slightly to gain a bit of extra length for this relatively major station.

The version of Minories in 60 Plans for Small Locations has the kick-back "parcels siding" or "storage road" and so needs 5 turnouts, and yet is quoted as Minimum radius 3ft.

Yes, in the second edition of 60 Plans for Small Railways the axonometric drawing shows two scale bars alongside it, one for TT-3 and one for OO. The TT-3 scale indicates the layout is 5ft long and the OO scale indicates 6ft 8in by only 9in! In this book it is simply referred to as "Plan 49s" - not yet referred to as Minories. In 60 Plans for Small Locations (first published in 1989, my edition from 1996) it has become Plan SP35 and has the Minories name. A new axonometric drawing shows it as 7ft by 1ft and the loco spur is around 12in long. It quotes a minimum radius of 3ft but I take that with a huge pinch of salt because I know it's not possible using Streamline parts - the point ladder simply won't fit into 3ft 6in.

What about a cassette connection near the front of the "scenic FY" so that when stock is away in the rest of the world it is actually physically not present in your model world... (It's stored on shelves somewhere in the room.) In other words, the scene really is fully scenic - a terminus where two lines meet in Y formation, just like Barnstaple Victoria Road, where the backmost Y arm trundles off into your branch line and the frontmost arm to the rest of the world hits the baseboard edge and stops (at the cassette connection point). I know cassettes are something of a marmite suggestion but at least in N it would be easier to store whole trains without the cassettes becoming unmanageable!

Both! I don't think flowering plants really show that density and intensity of colour in real life. Some highly-bred garden plants might, but not natives. You might be able to do dandelions better with just tiny dots of yellow scattered over the grass - just like my lawn! Foxgloves often only have a few flowers open on the spike at any one time, the rest are buds or gone over.

I'm not sure about those flowering plants...

It's lovely but I would venture to suggest that doesn't qualify as a true Minories because the throat is very different - incorporating a sophisticated curving scissors by the look of it!

Hi Ian, I just read the entire thread trying to get an idea of what your roof structure is going to look like (and the eaves detail in particular) but enlightenment eluded me. Have you got any drawings? P.S. Did you insert DPC under your joists?