Titanius Anglesmith

Thank you for the info, you’re a star!

If you wouldn't mind please, it would be very helpful. But no problem if not. I've been on the lookout for cost effective 3- or 4-pole relays (general purpose) without much success; you've made me realise that two 2-pole relays in parallel is actually more economic. Incidently, that station throat point work is looking very impressive!

Ive never heard of that, but it makes perfect sense. Thanks for the info

I've been giving this some more consideration, much to SWMBO's irritation. Following Jack Benson's suggestion I've been trying to recreate Harestone on anyrail. Admittedly I'm exceptionally clumsy with anyrail, but I can't get it to work as smoothly as it does in the sketch without sacrificing platform length, and that's after canning most of the sidings. I think the wide island platform might be hampering in my efforts? Also the raw trackplan (before platforms etc are added) ends up being very similar to what I've already drawn. I've had a shift about in my space, which means it's probably best to have the terminus at the right hand end after all. I've had another fiddle with my original plan (I'm giving it another go before I give up with it!!), the one pilfered from Sheffield Exchange..... I've shifted the pointwork as close to the scenic edge as I dare I've curved the platforms slightly so that they're not aimed directly at the top corner I've binned one goods siding (as much as I'd prefer two). The siding should really be parallel with the platform edge, but you get the gist. I'm willing to bin the rear-most / top platform if necessary. It is perilously close to the backscene. The traverser as drawn is for illustrative purposes only. To make things clearer I've crayon'd in the platforms, a small station building and a signal box. As drawn the platforms are about 3" wide, and a bit more than 42" long. I acknowledge that the runaround is still short; it may just be used for reversing goods trains. For the building I imagine a small wooden structure, again like Shoeburyness. Thanks in advance for any comments

I think the OP may need some clarification of the conventional terms used in signalling. Imagine you're the signalman, standing facing the lever frame: When the lever is leaning away, in its furthest position away from you, it is said to be "Normal", "On" or "In the frame". When you've pulled the lever towards you, it is said to be "Reversed", "Off" or "out of the frame". (the exception to the rule is 7 lever as explained by Flyingsignalman)

+1.... I came across this by accident, very interesting. I will be following this closely. That point drive solution looks very elegant. May I ask where you got the £2 relays from please? If my own layout plans ever get off the ground, I hope to control it from a lever frame. However I cut my teeth on RRI rather than mechanical locking, so my frame was going to be electrically locked rather than mechanically. Thanks, TA (not FIRSE, just a license holder)

What a beautiful layout! I've got a definite soft spot for those Midland 4-4-0s

Thanks for the info. I'll take a look at it next time I'm visiting. Any comments regarding my feelings can be taken as tongue firmly in cheek. Of course, this is the internet so I reserve the right to be insulted by the most innocuous of comments....... Difficult? Moi? Never! I'll cite Shoeburyness again, it was double track terminating in a small town on the coast (well, river estuary). The LT&SR was bought out by the Midland in 1912. My platform runaround is short I admit, but it doesn't of course impede on operating like Minories. By "bay", what I really meant was a third platform. Poor terminology on my part. You assume correct that the layout is against a wall. Interesting examples, thank you.

I think I haven't explained my reasoning very well in my opening post, I'm quite good at missing things like that. Ultimately I want a small layout with some interesting operating potential where I can run some of Dad's stock. Somewhat to my own surprise I've been won-over by the Minories concept. Your own PDF played no small part in that, in conjunction with Clive Mortimore's Sheffield Exchange Mk1. Minories has a small footprint, visually interesting track layout and lots of operating potential. However the typical urban setting doesn't appeal, although I fully appreciate the reasoning behind it. The R/H plan that I drew is simply Clive's "Minories in four points" with goods sidings in place of the loco spur (and on a wider baseboard in consequence). Then I added the platform release crossover so that I'm not limited to relying on a pilot or layover loco. That's why, if I'm absolutely honest, I'm surprised by some of the comments (criticisms?) made earlier in the thread, as they would apply equally to the much lauded Minories. Moving on from my damaged pride, I still haven't figured out how to split quotes up on my phone, so...... It's normally most satisfying to have all the station pointwork on scene (IMHO) but that's not always possible with small layouts. If you have a traverser it can take on the role of some of the points. I appreciate that, but I would strongly wish for the pointwork to remain on scene. As you suggested earlier, the pointwork can be shifted as close to the scenic edge as possible to maximise the platforms. The bay platform (if you really have to have one...) does not need to be connected inside both the crossovers (real or notional) because it would probably only be used for departures. E.g. small passenger trains would arrive in one of the main platforms then shunt to the bay before later departing. The bay is desirable as it is a part of the Minories core, but not absolutely necessary. I agree that it doesn't need to be served by the arrival line; I suggested in the opening post that I may signal it departure-only despite the physical connection to the down line being available (I'm in two minds about that. The additional shunt moves required would be interesting). I have sketched something out along those lines. Is it OK to post it here? Absolutely, please do. Dad was quite ruthless about upgrading his locos when an improved version was released, so most of his locos are fairly recent. However there is a Deeley Flatiron 0-6-4T of unknown provenance which is likely a kit-build. Coaching stock I'm not so sure. I wont lose any sleep by using code 100 over 75, but I read on here that code 75 peco slips are a lot better than their 100 equivalents. Thanks again for the replies.

Thanks for the comments everyone. My LH plan takes some of its cues from the LT&SR terminus at Shoeburyness. It was double track, originally two platforms with a bay added in the early 1900s. There was a modest goods yard of 4 or 5 sidings, though it was on the up side whereas I've put mine on the down side. There was no headshunt. As the station building was on the up side, most off-peak trains crossed over and terminated in the "up" platform. Therefore the "facing" crossover between the platforms was actually trailing for the majority of trains. There was also a loco shed, and later extensive carriage sidings; both of which I'm happy to omit in my imaginary station. I will reply more directly to some of the comments later when time allows. Thanks

Which begs the question, how did the lever for the single disc interact with the rest of the frame? Did it lock the relevant points both ways? Very interesting, thanks for the info everyone

"Whatever the question, we usually end up with Minories!" - TonyMay, RMWeb Greetings All, I had made a "beginner's" thread previously, but after much contemplation the topic, my available space, and my criteria have diverged quite drastically. With some reluctance (unfounded, perhaps?), I concede that a modular, Minories-inspired terminus-to-fiddle yard may be the answer. I apologise to the old hands who are probably watching this unfold with a tedious inevitability. As I will shortly be in a position to start making baseboards, I thought I should seek the experts' thumbs-up before work commences. I will be keeping Harlequin's very helpful Minories PDF close at hand. However for the station throat I have unscrupulously pilfered drawn inspiration from Clive Mortimore's elegant Sheffield Exchange Mk1 (with some adjustments). Rather than an urban setting, I envisage a country-end terminus with small goods yard. I hasten to add that I do not consider my end result to be a true Minories. Despite my numerous ineptitudes I somehow cobbled together these two crude plans on Anyrail, with terminus on the left and terminus on the right: Terminus on the left would be a bit more practical in my available space, but I think the track flows better with the terminus on the right (I'm also aware that I haven't trapped the exit of the L/H goods yard). I have seen the Minories plan with the kick-back yard, but I'm not sure how keen I am about that. Some notes on the above, in no particular order: 1. The layout has to be OO gauge, that's non-negotiable. See Rule 1A below. 2. In case it's not clear, the roads from top to bottom are: Bay, Platform 1, Platform 2, 2x goods sidings. 3. The grid squares are 6". A 10' 6" length is just about the limit. I am naively optimistic that one day I'll be able to extend by adding intermediate boards. 4. Short trains are a necessary compromise. Biggest loco probably an 0-6-0 tender engine or at a stretch a 4-4-0. Mostly I'll be using tank locos. 5. I intend to use something like a 3 or 4 road Denny-style fiddle yard (i.e. lift-out), sat on top of a traverser. I'd prefer points to a traverser but I acknowledge that length is limited. 6. I have sacrificed the loco spur. If/when there is layover operation, the layover loco can stand on the departure line. I understand there were prototypes for this (Cardiff?). 7. I acknowledge that shunting the yard will necessitate using the running line as a headshunt, probably going into the fiddle yard. I think I prefer this to using a dedicated headshunt, which in any case will be too short. 8. DC control, electrofrog points. Points to be electrically operated. I've assumed Peco Streamline Code 75. Any reason I should or should not use code 100? 9. Intended era is 1920s/30s LMS, although the infrastructure and signalling may be pre-grouping (MR, maybe?). 10. I have some ideas for the signalling, but that will follow later. I may signal the bay as departure-only, in line with general practice at the time. 11. Finally, Rule 1A applies - Dad's railway. My late father left his extensive OO gauge collection to my brother and I. I want this layout to be a continuation of what he started; that mandates using his locos and rolling stock, come what may. Any thoughts from the experts? Have I made any daft errors? This will be my first layout although I have a little experience with Dad's, so I'll be seeking lots of advice along the way. Through this forum I have learnt that Dad's methods were not necessarily the best... (but conversely showing that there's more than one way to skin the proverbial). Thanks in advance!

I absolutely agree, but just thinking of a potential alternative.... hand-worked trap points, but bolted / FPL’d from Puddlebrook box. The bolt will only go home if the points are set for the trap. I can think of a prototype crossover (goods only) that linked two railway companies’ lines. One company’s box worked the points, the other company’s box worked the FPL. It’s just a thought, use or discard at your leisure

That scenic work is stunning

That weathering is very effective. Nice to see the lathe in the background too

My apologies for the confusion. I am referring to the ground signals (disc or miniature arm) used for shunt moves to / from goods yards etc.

Well I checked one of our Engineering Standards today...... it refers to both "tie plate" and "soleplate" interchangeably!

Please forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference? I think we may have our wires crossed. My local railway is the LT&SR. Their short / miniature shunt arms were certainly installed by the LT&SR when they were still an independent company. Some locations were later resignalled by the LMS and received discs. In in any case, your quote regarding Midland practice is most interesting, and I think answers my original question. Thank you for that

Thanks for the link, RLWP. It doesn’t really address my questions, but very interesting nonetheless. I’m intrigued that the LNWR didn’t adopt miniature arm shunts until 1915, I thought it was much earlier than that. My local railway also used miniature arms; they were absorbed by the Midland and then the LMS, but some of the arms survived until colour light signalling arrived in the ‘60s. It’s something I’m tempted to model instead of the more usual discs.

Greetings All, I'm sure this has been discussed before but I just cannot find it. I must be searching for the wrong terms. I have a few questions regarding stacked shunt signals for multiple routes please, if I may? 1. When did they come into use, and in what regions / companies? I'm aware that the LMS were quite fond of them, but was that an LMS innovation or inherited from pre-grouping? 2. What arrangement was in place before stacked discs came into use? I realise that I'm asking two very big questions there with lots or permutations. For what it's worth, I'm interested mainly in LMS and Midland practice (and even that's a big ask.....) Thanks in advance

Im not sure if this will help or muddy the waters further, but..... Some companies placed their lever frames at the rear of the 'box, in which case your signalman will be facing the same way as your operator. Would that make the numbering easier to follow for the operator?

Where I'm from we've always called it a tie plate, but you've got me wondering now whether that's just a local colloquialism. When I'm back at the coal face I'll have to check some official documentation

Under the circumstances of the thread I'm a bit surprised there's been no mention of the tie plate. If I may be so bold to add, the tie plate is the flat metal plate beneath the first pair of slide chairs. It's purpose is to hold the road to gauge (like the temporary tie bar). I dont know the the etymology of the term "stretcher", but I notice that the bars holding the legs of a chair or table together are also known as stretchers.

At first glance I thought that photo was real It was only the Encombe Daries sign that gave it away

Just a thought.... If the cattle dock siding is just that, I completely agree. But if it's a passenger bay then the upper trap point is needed.