Pacific231G

That's fair enough; they'll sell you any of their current stock for that very low price

Thanks for this Martin I knew that the radii in Peco's slips were tight but didn't realise they were quite that tight and it explains why my attempts to design a very short terminus throat including them to replace medium radius points have produced unexpectedly severe buffer locking.I'm about to do the same exercise with an SMP slip and some of their 3ft radius turnouts but suspect I'll get the same result.(Update: I did, one buffer of each coach was under the drawhook of the other just as with the Peco slip) Since I don't have room for Peco's large radius points (which would themselves be unusually sharp for any main line) I'll be interested to see how their bullhead track looks when applied to medium radius pointwork. Possibly a bit more goods yard sidings than back of the gasworks though in the 1950s and 1960s when Peco were producing Pecoway and Individulay track using a sleeper spacing of about 2ft6ins in 4mm scale (10mm), most scale modellers seemed to regard a nominal radius of three feet even for handbuilt points as the norm in OO . It certainly won't get over the fundamental dilemma that almost all of us run scale models on a very underscale railway (in terms of length rather than gauge) so are inevitably creating an impression of the railway rather than a scale model of the whole thing. Perhaps success is aesthetic rather than mathematical.

I don't know about anyone else here but I've been using Kadees for years though sometimes Roco "harpoons" within sets. The successful EM gauge "Minories GN" also uses Kadees. I would probably avoid an overall roof at the loco release point but I've operated an 0n30 layout using Kadees and permanent magnets where the platform ends were under a canopy and it wasn't a problem. With permanent magnets you do have to be a bit careful where they're actually sited and electromagnets are an alternative.

Dudley was a 15" gauge railway so definitely ground level. http://www.stephensonloco.org.uk/sls_jacobs4.htm I hadn't realised that one of the locos used on the DZR was the same one I met years later as "Sir Winston Churchill" at Blenheim Park and its now at Evesham. I also hadn't realised that Belnheim was a 15" gauge railway and the loco is presumably to scale for the gauge as it's a lot smaller than those on the RHDR Blenheim also used to be home to the raised track miniature railway belonging to the Witney and West Oxfordshire Society of Model Engineers (now moved to Cutteslowe Park in Oxford as the City of Oxford S.M.E.) I think it was seeing the arrangements there that first convinced me of the essential failing of monorails. At Blenheim you had to pass through one of two swing bridge "level crossings" to get inside the circuit but I can't remember whether they used a turntable, traverser or a turnout (essentially a traverser or a rotating arrangement with one straight and one curved section of track on it) to access the steaming bay. The advantage of a turnout would be to enable trains of carriages to be run off the main line but it would be more complicated than a simple swinging section acting as a turntable. Is it just my impression or have S.M.E.s tended to move from raised to ground level track for their passenger carrying railways or is that just a function of gauge with 5" or above being ground level?

He also used a sector plate at the end of platform three on one of his Minories plans to enable the platform to be the run round for the lead to a kick back goods yard (and presumably vice versa). The downside of releasing traversers was that they were incredibly rare, the only one I'm aware of in a British mainline terminus was at Birmingham-Moor. and abroad I can only think of Paris-Bastille and two in Melbourne, all long gone. Their advantage over a turntable or sector plate (such as the one at Boulogne Maritime) was that the transfer table presented a continuous track to both incoming platform tracks. For passenger trains that was surely a regulatory requirement as you couldn't have a void before the buffers but did mean that a traverser between two platforms needed three sets of rails and to be released by the signalbox before it could move. I assume Boulogne got away with its sector plate, with no fewer than seven tracks coming into it, because trains arrived there at walking pace. At places like Bembridge, with only one platform, the turntable could also presumably be locked in the position where it faced the platform road. Electric traversers seem to have been a relatively modern development and before them , if you wanted to use a turntable release at a main line station you needed somethnig like this arrangement at the old Ramsgate Harbour terminus. Each platform track ended in a buffer stop and I assume the points were only set for the turntable once an arriving train had come to a stop. (not to scale) The miniature railway terminus idea could be fun, there used to be a very nice one on the exhibition circuit based on the RHDR, and it does give scope for intensive working from a fairly modest terminus. The Ruislip Lido Railway uses a turntable at the end of the line to both turn and release their single ended diesel locos (and steam when its running) though that's only a single platform operation. There's also scope for freelancing and mixing whatever locos you fancy, For once the discrepancy between loco scale and track scale if you base them on OO models would be pretty realistic- weren't Henry Greenly's locos for the RHDR based very roughly on third scale locos on quarter scale track? - as would the oversize treads, flanges and crossing clearances. One of my early childhood memories is from a miniature railway, I think the one at Dudley Zoo near Birmingham in the 1950s. Even as a four year old, though with a signalman grandfather, I remember thinking that a turntable actually on the main line was very odd. My recollection is that the whole train passed over the turntable but that may be false.

It does look rather wonderful though I'm reliably informed that many of the French locos actually had Gooch valve gear like this ex CF de l'Ouest 0-6-0 (SNCF class 3-030C) For some reason the Gooch development of Stephenson was far more popular with French railways than with ours. If you saw the Burt Lancaster movie "The Train" it was one of these that was deliberately derailed to start the crash sequence at "Rive-Reine" (really Acquigny) This class of originally over 300 locos had a remarkably long life with the first batch built in 1867 and the last of them still in service in the mid 1960s.

Do you have any more details of that? The early French four wheel "Bidels" with separate "slam door" compartments below and an upper saloon had very limited headroom. Only about 1.7 metres (5ft 7ins) for the lower compartments and a maximum, in the centre aisle, of 1.6m (5ft 3ins) in the upper saloon Definitely not suitable for Texans! .

Worth remembering that the immortal Douglas DC3 originated as a DC-2 lengthened to accomodate bunks for overnight travel (based on the original curtained sleeping arrangements on American trains) called the Douglas DST- Douglas Sleeper Transport. It was identifiable from mainstream DC-3s by four very narrow windows above the normal ones to help passengers using the upper bunks from feeling claustrophobic . The principle of interlocking compartments on more than one level used by Bulleid was also quite widely used for sleeping compartments both in the the US and in the CIWL P type sleeping cars. where pairs of lower compartments alternated with pairs of upper compartments reached by a three step shared staircase. The P type did strike me as being a rather claustrophobic experience that I'd not have wanted want to pay the price of a sleeper for. OT, I used to use BR sleepers quite often and always found them very civilised as well as offering some useful cross-country routes such as Newcastle to Exeter and far preferable to getting up early for a morning flight. I've also travellled a few times in couchettes where the uppermost of the three bunks was a permanent fixture under the curve of the roof, the other two being made up from the seat and back of the seating. They had the advantage that a couple of people could sleep on them during the day but in daytime mode the actual seats always seemed rather uncomfortable.

This is absolutely fascinating Bloodnok. I'd seen this artists impression but was this done by you? (and if so I hope I've not breached your IP) Was your design exercise comissioned by or for BR or was it a private initiative? Just looking at it tentatively I concluded that it was just about possible within UK gauge but unlikely to be worth doing. The only other approach I did wonder about was to use Bulleid's idea of interleaved compartments but with access from a common corridor (centre for saloon seating or side for compartments) I remember a restaurant, I think near Waterloo, that had interlocking upper and lower booths rather like this but I don't think the diners thought much of it. It's worth noting that when the closed saloon double deckers were first introduced by the CF de l'Est, the Parisian commuters immediately nicknamed them "Bidels", likening them to the double deck travelling animal cages of the then famous menagerie of François Bidel. The nickname remained for the carriages long after the menagerie was forgotten but suggests they were less than well loved. Obvious question having only seen pictures of them. What were they actually like to travel in and did you prefer upper or lower, or possibly waitng for the next train.

I suppose you could do it by having side steps up and down to door lobbies at conventional height from each level and still have two continuous decks but even within a width of 10ft you'd end up with some rather narrow corridors. The type of double decker originally introduced by the C.F.de l'Etat in 1933 has become the norm in most countries that used them with single decks at conventional height at each end providing the entrances and some seating I never travelled on one of these but even as a visitor I do find the VB2N (double deck suburban) coaches used around Paris and elsewhere a bit claustrophobic on both decks even when they're not busy (though far better than standing when they are ) The Duplex TGVs rely on a somewhat more generous loading gauge. In the Western USA, Amtrak operate a type first introduced by the Santa Fe for its El Capitan service with a continuous upper deck including the corridor connections and the external entrances in the middle of each car at the lower level. It looks from this that the reduced space below the upper deck above the bogies was used for services like air con.but the larger loading gauge in the west would enable a fairly spacious upper deck and still have seating, bathrooms, kitchens and baggage rooms on the lower deck. With almost no or very low platforms on Western US RRs this design makes sense, gives the passengers a much better view and they don't have to constantly go up and down stairs (or disability access lifts) as they move through the train something that is far less important on commuter trains. There are interrmediate carriages for connecting these cars to regular single deck equipment. This is wandering a bit from imaginary locomotives.

It goes down from 9ft to 8ft 8ins. I think this comparison is.a bit out of date and the current widely adopted UIC loading gauge is probably a bit taller than Berne but it illustrates the challenge. I'm pretty sure the Etat's double deckers were within Berne. They were slightly out of gauge for lines with OHE but that was fixed by fitting them with smaller wheels. Anyway, back to imaginary locomotives; I think a steam railcar sort of counts as a locomotive This drawing from 1881 is of an idea mooted two years earlier. The concept behind this improbable looking vehicle was for a steam rail motor that could, on its own, cater for the non-goods needs of a quiet branch line. It would have essentially added half a steam tram loco to a four wheel double deck carriage. Up to twenty four third class passengers would ride on the upper deck, there would be one second class compartment for ten people, a half compartment (coupé) for four first class passengers, a postal coupé that could take another five second class passengers when the posties were't using it and a baggage compartment that, apart from carrying smalls and the guard, would meet the then legal requirement that passengers couldn't be right next to the locomotive, It appears to be single ended so presumably would have been turned at each end of its run. It was supposed to be able to haul a single trailer. Needless to say, such a bizarre concoction didn't stay on the drawing board and two of them were actually built by Fives Lille. They weren't a success, maintenance was a problem as was lack of power and the passengers hated them (but who cared what they thought, lucky to have a railway at all) Following an inglorious career they were scrapped after just ten years and the Etat railway was clearly embarassed by them as there doesn't seem to be a single photograph of one of these in existence. With no photographic evidence I thought that these things were about as real as unicorns until I found a contemporary account of them in service mostly around Chartres and La Rochelle.

At the risk of being a bit OT by looking at imaginary coaches rather than just locos, I'm intrigued by your double deck Mk3 because I think a proper double decker night just be achievable within the British loading gauge. (cc Hugh Llewelyn This attempt by Bulleid using interleaved compartments was one less than successful approach but modern design should be able to do better. We're clearly not looking for anything like this . (crude bur dimensionally accurate Jouef model of a CF de l'Ouest later Etat "Imperiale") This looks like a deathtrap for the very good reason that it was, leave your seat and you might well take leave of your head, but hundreds were built and if you'd been a third class Parisian commuter you might have been confronted by one of these until about about 1930, (CC Patrick Giraud) A much safer development was to use a lowered chassis to make room for an upper saloon. These, were much better and a few were in use until 1952 (CC Claude Shoshany) The upper level was rather cramped but with bogies and modern lightweight construction you could probably depress the lower deck sufficiently (and turn it from compartments to a saloon) to fit a version of these, first introduced in the early 1930s, within our loading gauge (GFDL Didier Duforest) it would be an interesting design exercise. Our loading gauge (4.115m) is lower than that in continental Europe (4.28m) but only by about six inches though with a more rounded maximum roof section. You also don't actually need full headroom over the seats, you don't get that on the London tube or Glasgow Subway, so judicious placement of gangways would probably help. It would be cramped though possibly no more so than tube stock so not ideal for long distances. However, the real downside for the TOCs might be the need to give everyone seats and that might go against the British philosophy for commuter services of cramming more passengers in by making most of them stand and providing fewer seats (Am I being too cynical?) .

Not really any more room Phil because French main line passenger stock from ep III was generally longer than its British contemporaries. The prototypes of the "Bruhats" I used for my tests were 21.1m over body whereas BR Mk 1s were 17.31m or 19.35m so, though H0 is 7/8 the scale of OO, the lengths are probably comparable. If I were looking at a comparable British 4mm scale layout it would have to be GWR/WR with Halls and Castles the longest locos. The crossover isn't really for the longest locos but more to give greater flexibility by facilitating other shunting such as releasing locos from shorter local trains. It's a moot point how much use it would actually get but I notice that Geoff Ashdown included one in Tower Pier and that's only two metres in total plus a metre long cassette fiddle yard. The old Fort William station did have a releasing crossover but it apparently fell completely out of use. Even without it that terminus offered a surprising amount of operational variety with just two points- effectively an Inglenook sidings for passenger trains and some very busy pilot locos Something derived from the Fort with the addition of goods is the other basis for a plan that I'm looking at.as it would enable longer trains with no buffer lock but would be the end of a single track line (which doesn't mean rural branch)

Don't worry Peter. In the theatre, at least in the west, The hero(ine) normally enters stage right (so from the left from the audience's point of view) and that's what your locos will now do. Perhaps you instinctively sensed that when you built the street. This is looking good and I'm really looking forward to seeing this layout.

I hadn't really thought it through that far but yes it could. I'm a bit dubious though about leaving open voids at the ends of tracks. My idea was that the kickback into the goods yard would look visually like one end of a longer goods yard running in front of the main line with the modelled end of the goods shed acting as a view blocker for the main line exit. Operationally though it remains a short two road yard. . If you weren't using a traverser (or even if you were I suppose) you could use the front of the fiddle yard to re-arrange wagons. I've operated a few layouts whose off stage has effectively been a fiddle table on which cassettes can be shuffled and I've seen others that combine conventional sidings with cassettes. One good thing about using Kadees is that vehicles can be lifted out of trains very easily.

That would have cost real money, far more than building fifty steam locos to replace others that in any case went on to other jobs. I believe also that for strategic reasons the Est was discouraged from electrification. The physical changes to the approach trackwork weren't really a rebuild, the changes were relatively modest as these signalling diagrams show. The first was before the rationalisation and the second from after. The third is my update to reflect the slighlty simplified final track plan still in use at closure in 1969 after passenger numbers had decreased from their peak in the 1920s. Note that the square signals are absolute stop "carrés" and the diagonal ones are "avertissements", in this context roughly equivalent to our homes and starters and distant signals. You can see from the diagrams that the changes between 1920 and 1925 were no more than a couple of extra crossovers but that was enough to enable parallel moves between any pair of platforms. That wouldn't have been possible between platforms II & IIIwith the older scheme . The real work was done by the traffic department (service d'exploitation) in rationalising the entire service into a rhythm. During the evening rush trains always left in the same order from V to I with arriving trains and ECS movements replacing them in the same order so thst the whole cycle could be repeated. Also, instead of simply running semi-fast and stopping trains, the trains going further down the line ran fast to a particular station then as stoppers to their final destination. As a bonus these normally left from the same platforms so regular commuters didn't clog up the narrow concourse waiting to see which platform their train was leaving from. In the morning, where the rush was a bit more spread out, a similar rhythm worked in reverse. This wasn't very different from the intense steam hauled suburban services that ran from several of the London termini long before electrification and having a fleet of identical locos would have made for far more predictable operation with any loco able to haul any service. Bit boring for modelling though with Minories Cyril Freezer did suggest identical tank locos pulling identical trains* with a simple reverse loop to get them back. . *In the original TT-3 version presumably the Jinties and suburban coaches that, with a few wagons, constituted Tri-ang's initial offer.

I wouldn't describe it as easy but perhaps easier than an equally short straight approach would have been, it was a fiendishly difficult exercise to push 20-25% more trains through the already struggling terminus without major rebuilding. They'd already installed electric traversers similar to those at Birmingham Moor Street to maximise the length of the trains of four wheel double-deck coaches that ran on the line but that hadn't been enough. Tweaking the throat design was only part of the process and a lot of work went into completely rethinking the rush hour timetable for the whole line and the movement of locos from arriving to departing trains at Bastille itself. My latent interest in the station was rekindled by getting hold of a paper presented by the Est to a couple of professional bodies in 1931 describing the rationalisation in some detail. . Had the approach been straight (like Fenchurch Street) then I suspect they would have had to widen the first couple of hundred metres of the viaduct to enable pointwork with a far shallower crossing angle to be used . That would have been both expensive and difficult and given that there was a major hospital on one side and a oublic road the other I'm not sure how they would have done it. The railway's directors also wanted to avoid spending serious money on the line - commuters weren't the most profitable passengers - though they did order a fleet of more powerful Prairie tanks (later SNCF Class 1-131TB modelled in H0 scale by Hornby-Acho) to give better accelaration .

Sorry to hear about the injury Dan. May I join everyone in wishing you a speedy and successfull recovery and it's good to know that you're back at work if not behind the wheel. I have to say that your account of Birimingham Hope St. has been and is one of the most inspiring recent threads on RMWEB so definitely looking forward to whatever comes next.

For my own possible layout, which will normally need to fit in a 4m long room, I am looking to be able to extend it when possible so probably would go for parallel lines at each end. I'm also looking at another plan that would allow for longer trains but that wouldn't be a Minories derivative so probably off-topic here. Within the four metre constraint I agree with Joseph that your latest design is excellent.

Hi Jane Bastille is certainly a good source of inspiration. Designing an angled approach with no reverses is fairly straightforward if you simply want to connect each platform to both of the main lines. For the equivalent of Minories the angle is double the crossing angle of the turnouts you're using which I think would be 24o for Peco Streamline. The challenge with Bastille,as an increasingly busy commuter station was to redesign the approach to enable simultaneous arrivals and departures between both main lines and any two platforms in an abnormally short space. That meant using very short points ( about 1:7.5) which in turn meant that trains couldn't be subject to any reverse curves such as a normal crossover. . This was the final version of the approach- based on a 1950s SNCF plan and checked against photos. I drew this up using Peco large radius points which are similar in length to the off-the-shelf turnouts used by SNCF. They achieved the whole thing in the equivalent length of eight turnouts which was an amazing piece of design. My reduced four platform version of Bastille only saved the length of a single turnout and is seven long. just two more than the minimum of five required to connect four platforms to both sides of a double track mainline if you don't need every parallel route. For a more intense commuter operation you can have parallel moves between all three of Minories' platforms by adding a direct connection between platform three and the the up (inbound) main but with no reverse curves using an angled approach you lose a bit more than the length of a turnout from platform three What's really frustrating about Bastille is that the original design records seem to be lost including those that appeared briefly in SNCF's film made just after it closed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwn8DzI0rpU The original passenger terminus was just an arrival and departure platform either side of the main train shed with four tracks between them. The narrower and nastier (in terms of finish) second shed used after about 1879 for platform one and its loco release was built for something else. It may have just been a carriage shed but typical terminus design in the mid 1850s suggests a goods depot of some kind and if so I'd love to get hold of a track plan for that.

Hi Jane Do you mean this one? or this slightly reduced version with four platforms and a smaller loco shed based entirely on Peco medium radius left and right hand points with NO reverse curves. I'm actually extremely familiar with Bastille (though I missed seeing it in operation by about nine months - curses!) . Three reasons I don't want to model it. . 1. It's all passenger with no goods facilities . 2.Though very compact as a prototype it would still be a large model. 3. Except for one brief period immediately after the occupation when it was the terminus of the Mulhouse main line because a viaduct was down, it ran an intense but purely suburban service with a fleet of identical tank locos. I do know someone who has modelled it though. Bastille really was the original Minories writ larger. However , you could cut it down to four platform roads and use the second shed as a goods depot (rather like the other original Minories plan) possibly losing the loco shed .

Hi Phil This has a nice flow to it and, though most of the reverses are immediate, they do all involve a larger radius turnout on at least one side. It also preserve CJF's principle that "every train just has one wiggle". The immediate reverses do still give what would be buffer locking if I weren't using Kadees but with my H0 stock any immediate reverse that includes a medium radius (nominal 3ft) point will have that problen. I suspect that something like a pair of BR Mk 1s in 00 would be perfectly happy even with non-buffing couplers. I'm probably not looking at a traverser or sector plate (and certainly not a 7 road one) so the position of the main line track is not so critical and in any case the wall in question has a firebreast. Given that what you have as a loco servicing track would actually be a bay platform for autorails and postal/baggage cars, I'm seeing the headshunt and therefore the TJD (double slip) behind platform 3 as probably unnecessary unless the terminus is also marshalling local goods trains, That is possible and a reversing terminus like Fort William or Tulle or one serving a secondary or branch line as well as a main lne such as Deauville-Trouville, Weymouth or Lowestoft may provide some interesting working.

Hi Clive. Your layout looks interesting. Is there any more about it on another thread? There's nothing wrong with Peco's slips and the geometry looks very similar to an SMP double slip that I've just been looking at but it depends on the stock you're using. With my Roco H0 scale "Bruhat" main line coaches- the worst case of my Ep III SNCF main line coaches- I simply do get significant buffer locking when propelling through the curved route. I get the same with any nominally two foot radius pointwork (which Peco slips apparently are) even just taking the branching route through a short turnout with straight track at eiither end produces a massive displacement. Buffer locking through small radius pointwork isn't a new problem. I'm just reading an article in the May 1954 MRN on this very subject The test coaches I'm using are fitted with fairly flimsy scale buffers so clearly designed to have buffing couplers (which in practice they do) and I'm not sure if 4mm scale vehicles the same length with correspondingly wider buffers would experience buffer locking to the same degree. Hasn't it also been common practice for those using scale couplers with coaching stock to fit slightly wide of scale buffers to them? Buffer locking isn't the real issue for me, I use Kadees or Roco close couplers and have no interntion of using scale screw link couplers, it's mainly just a way of quantifying the degree of displacement. What does look bad is for most of the interior of a corridor connection to be revealed every time a pair of coaches goes over pointwork or for one of each set of buffers to line up with the opposite drawhook . Any of our OO or H0 scale passengers trying to find a seat or returning to their own seat after visiting the buffet would end up as a bloody mess in the four foot. Wagons are far more forgiving and even my relatively long wheel base (compared with British10-12ft ) European four wheel wagons are perfectly happy trundling over 2ft radius crossovers with their buffers in good contact. I've laid out the core pointwork of a Minories equivalent using what would be a single slip This shows the maximum throwover and the buffers were completely separated every time . I've had a go at a Minories equivalent plan using a single slip instead of the two back to back points The reduced length of the throat is attractive but two of the six routes have to negotiate the two foot radius curved route through the slip. These include one of the two routes that now include an immediate S and to avoid extreme buffer movement the points switching between platforms 2 and 3 would probably need to be long . In Cyril Freezer's design only one route has an immediate S, the other five all have a straight the length of a point between the reverse curves and with medium radius points that's at least the length between bogie centres of a long coach.

Thanks for this. I've never been that keen on using slips- though SNCF are so it would probably help the Gallic feel- but that might work and a friend of mine has a Code 75 single slip he wants to sell This also produces a significantly shorter throat. However, I've just been trying this arrangement out with a Code 100 double slip and the radius of that is actually quite small, smaller than even a medium radius point* so that simply taking one of the curved routes through it with straight track at either end produces definite buffer locking between my pair of test coaches (I've remove a coupler from each of them so that I can test the actual buffer displacement) Are Peco's code 75 single slips any better? . *Update, I've just checked Peco's site and they quote a nominal radius of 24" for the code 75 single slip so it's effectively equivalent to a small radius point. Not good..

Thanks for this Phil. Using two large radius points for the reverse curve is one of the permutations I've tried before. I've just laid it out again and it does give a very smooth flow with slightly less lateral displacement over the reverse curve than even a single medium radius point with no reverse. That does make it very tempting (and always has since I first started experimenting with Minories) The extra length at an angle does increase the pushover from the main line to the platforms (the sense that the railway's surveyors aimed for the station site but missed) but in fact this is only 18mm so doesn't make a lot of difference. The real catch for me is that using the two long points makes the throat 9cms longer than with entirely medium radius points or my variation including one medium Y (which is the same length as a medium). Though that doesn't seem much it makes the total throat length 38inches or 98cms. which, with a metre long board, only leaves 1cm between the end of the points and the end of the board .It may of course be possible to cut that down a bit by judicious trimming of the points and before seriously working on this particular arrangement some of my clapped out second hand points may well be sacrificed.Of course I could always learn to build my own pointwork. The total length I have to work with is just 4 metres- for various reasons the room isn't suitable for an L- which makes the theoretical absolute maximum train length with this arrangement 150cms. In practice that needs to come down by at least five cms. With the stock i'm using, 130cms is just long enough for a Pacific and four coaches but to be at all convincing it really needs a fifth vehicle that would make it 150-155 cms. This is definitely a quart into a pint pot exercise but, if you've been following Danstercivicman's inspiring Birmingham Hope St. thread, you'll know how good a Minories based layout can be. .