Birmingham Hope St- BR (ex GCR) Minories Style Urban Layout 1965

[Clive Mortimore]

Before moving and dismantling Sheffield Exchange Mk1 I had both a Peco double slip and a single slip with no problems, except for one DMU coach. And that got given new wheels, new bogies, new underframe and it still fell off. The same manufacturer, same class, same coach in other units didn't fall off. I am going to using 6 Peco slips on my next layout.

 

Hanging Hill had 3 slips no problems. I had one 3 way point that would derail Bachmann locos, the other 3 way didn't.

[danstercivicman]

Before moving and dismantling Sheffield Exchange Mk1 I had both a Peco double slip and a single slip with no problems, except for one DMU coach. And that got given new wheels, new bogies, new underframe and it still fell off. The same manufacturer, same class, same coach in other units didn't fall off. I am going to using 6 Peco slips on my next layout.

 

Hanging Hill had 3 slips no problems. I had one 3 way point that would derail Bachmann locos, the other 3 way didn't.

I think I will have to mock up the junction and test (note to self-test) before ballasting

 

I had one Bachmann mk.1 that could only run in fourth position in a six coach rake-any other position in the rage it de railed! I sold it!

[Richard Mawer]

I have two double slips used for low-speed moves and haven't had any problems with derailments except for trying to take a 9F through them.

Dan,

 

I have 2 code 100 Peco single slips on the mainlines at my junction station, and 2 more on the twin double junctions (instead of peco diamonds which are diabolical things and should have been redesigned years ago). Trains run through these at full mainline speeds with no trouble now the back to backs on the stock are sorted.

 

I have another single slip in the main terminus throat ( not dissimilar position to your proposed double). That takes all comers too.

 

I have 1 peco code 100 double slip in the loco yard. It only has locos and open wagons passing over, and quite slow, but only a Hornby 51xx grumbles. I’m not 100% sure why yet.

[melmerby]

Back-to-back gauges are only reliable if you standardise on your wheel flange thickness, it's surprising how they can vary between manufacturers. When I use Shinohara code 83 scissors crossovers it's the b2b on Hornby locos that need altering as many seem undersize.

I think you will find all Hornby B2Bs are undersize, more so than the other majors.

 

Keith

[danstercivicman]

Dan,

 

I have 2 code 100 Peco single slips on the mainlines at my junction station, and 2 more on the twin double junctions (instead of peco diamonds which are diabolical things and should have been redesigned years ago). Trains run through these at full mainline speeds with no trouble now the back to backs on the stock are sorted.

 

I have another single slip in the main terminus throat ( not dissimilar position to your proposed double). That takes all comers too.

 

I have 1 peco code 100 double slip in the loco yard. It only has locos and open wagons passing over, and quite slow, but only a Hornby 51xx grumbles. I’m not 100% sure why yet.

Cheers,

 

Much appreciated

 

I have a Bachmann Ivatt 4MT which had to have major surgery to take medium radius points as the front pony truck wheel was block by the cylinders!

 

I've also got a modified V3 which has the springs removed in the front pony truck for better running!

 

The minories throat avoids most issues but looks somewhat offset

[Andrew P]

I have 2 X Double Slips and a Single Slip on the Main Lines at KM with NO derailment issues. (see Videos)

[Pacific231G]

I think the minories throat works quite well, its not prototypical I expect but it does allow the use of large radius points and access to all platforms (except the bay).   If anyone has any ground signal suggestions please fire away

 

Meanwhile the banana train finally got shunted into P3!!!

 

My apologies for the lack of correct loco lamps on the Pilot and the Black Five- need payday to arrive!

Thanks for the latest photos Dan, inspiring as ever and it does show just how much interesting operation you can get out of a relatively simple plan.

 

Personally I like your latest plan better but I notice that the overall reverse curve in the Minories throat does push the main line away from the straight relief  line accessing the goods yard. If you've enough length to use large radius points throughout then you may be able to use an equivalent throat with straight crossovers without the excess throwover "buffer locking" problem that I've found I still get with medium radius points.

These two plans are operationally identical.

I guess a disadvantage is that a completely straight run in may be less visually interesting than the "Minories wriggle". If you've only got length to substitute two medium radius points with large radius ones then if you use those in a Minories throat for the two back to back points you should avoid the problem as with Minories it's only one of the six possible routes, the route between platform 1 and the inbound "up" line, that has an unseparated reverse.

 

Since the goods side is now not directly connected to the passenger side are you going to have it on a slightly different level as Geoff Ashdown did with Tower Pier?

Edited December 16, 2017 by Pacific231G

[danstercivicman]

Thanks for the latest photos Dan, inspiring as ever and it does show just how much interesting operation you can get out of a relatively simple plan.

 

Personally I like your latest plan better but I notice that the overall reverse curve in the Minories throat does push the main line away from the straight relief  line accessing the goods yard. If you've enough length to use large radius points throughout then you may be able to use an equivalent throat with straight crossovers without the excess throwover "buffer locking" problem that I've found I still get with medium radius points.

These two plans are operationally identical.

minories & straight line equivalent.jpg

I guess a disadvantage is that a completely straight run in may be less visually interesting than the "Minories wriggle". If you've only got length to substitute two medium radius points with large radius ones then if you use those in a Minories throat for the two back to back points you should avoid the problem as with Minories it's only one of the six possible routes, the route between platform 1 and the inbound "up" line, that has an unseparated reverse.

 

Since the goods side is now not directly connected to the passenger side are you going to have it on a slightly different level as Geoff Ashdown did with Tower Pier?

 

Cheers,

 

I really like that plan.  I will not be making the mistake of using medium radius points again!!!  

 

It feels more 'railway' like.   

 

I will have a small difference in the height of the goods yard- maybe a 4cm drop, nothing like the double level seen on Smallwood as as some point I'd like to expand across the fiddle yard, curving it round and having a junction where the goods spur meets the main lines.   The curve will also allow the engine shed to be modelled   

 

Cheers for all the feedback on the double slips    I will try one at another point.  Maybe my running experience has been down to shoddy baseboard construction :S  Your boards are ten times better than mine!

 

 

Cheers,

 

I really like that plan.  I will not be making the mistake of using medium radius points again!!!  

 

It feels more 'railway' like.   

 

I will have a small difference in the height of the goods yard- maybe a 4cm drop, nothing like the double level seen on Smallwood as as some point I'd like to expand across the fiddle yard, curving it round and having a junction where the goods spur meets the main lines.   The curve will also allow the engine shed to be modelled    

 

Cheers for all the feedback on the double slips     I will try one at another point.  Maybe my running experience has been down to shoddy baseboard construction :S  Your boards are ten times better than mine!

Edited December 16, 2017 by danstercivicman

[Pacific231G]

 

Cheers,

 

I really like that plan.  I will not be making the mistake of using medium radius points again!!!  

 

It feels more 'railway' like.   

 

I will have a small difference in the height of the goods yard- maybe a 4cm drop, nothing like the double level seen on Smallwood as as some point I'd like to expand across the fiddle yard, curving it round and having a junction where the goods spur meets the main lines.   The curve will also allow the engine shed to be modelled    

 

Are the points on Birmingham Hope Street small or medium? particularly the five (plus the locos spur) that make up the main throat.

Looking at layouts like Earl's Court and Tower Pier, even a quite small difference in level, probably less than a centimetre,  seems to make a big difference in visual terms and even two centimetres would largely avoid goods wagons masking passenger trains.

 

Tower Pier (Geoff Ashdown)

Earls Court (Terry Trew)

Edited December 17, 2017 by Pacific231G

[danstercivicman]

Are the points on Birmingham Hope Street small or medium? particularly the five (plus the locos spur) that make up the main throat.

Looking at layouts like Earl's Court and Tower Pier, even a quite small difference in level, probably less than a centimetre, seems to make a big difference in visual terms and even two centimetres would largely avoid goods wagons masking passenger trains.

 

DSCF5110.JPG

Tower Pier (Geoff Ashdown)

IMG_3973.jpg

Earls Court (Terry Trew)

 

Hello,

 

Thanks for the pictures the height being lowered makes a massive difference!

 

Hope street uses medium radius points and suffers accordingly!

 

I'm really keen to only use large radius now. Even Peco large radius is tight compared to Shinohara but they are easy to fit and use maybe I should also wire the whole thing up for future DCC with point motors?

[Pacific231G]

Hello,

 

Thanks for the pictures the height being lowered makes a massive difference!

 

Hope street uses medium radius points and suffers accordingly!

 

I'm really keen to only use large radius now. Even Peco large radius is tight compared to Shinohara but they are easy to fit and use maybe I should also wire the whole thing up for future DCC with point motors?

Thanks for this Dan

Peco's large radius points are curved through the frog to give the same divergence angle as the rest of the range which is fine in many combinations but in a straight crossover I find it makes the throwover between long vehicles greater than it would for straight points the same length.

 

With an absolute maximun length in the room of 4metres (13 feet) and no way to use an L because of other obsructions (door and airing cupboardl) . I simply don't have the length to use large radius points without sacrificing too much train length so may have to simply accept the compromise or revert to a single track throat. I've laid out and tested just about every other permutation of pointwork for connecting three platforms to a double track main line including subtle use of Ys and ended up concluding that unless you can angle the approach, Cyri Freezer can't be beaten; Minories really is the least worst answer.  Working in H0 with long carriages the problem is actually more evident than with 00 because, though the track gauge is the same, the dimensions of buffer beam and buffers and the width of corridor connections are 7/8ths smaller. 

Edited December 18, 2017 by Pacific231G

[danstercivicman]

Thanks for this Dan

Peco's large radius points are curved through the frog to give the same divergence angle as the rest of the range which is fine in many combinations but in a straight crossover I find it makes the throwover between long vehicles greater than it would for straight points the same length.

 

With an absolute maximun length in the room of 4metres (13 feet) and no way to use an L because of other obsructions (door and airing cupboardl) . I simply don't have the length to use large radius points without sacrificing too much train length so may have to simply accept the compromise or revert to a single track throat. I've laid out and tested just about every other permutation of pointwork for connecting three platforms to a double track main line including subtle use of Ys and ended up concluding that unless you can angle the approach, Cyri Freezer can't be beaten; Minories really is the least worst answer. Working in H0 with long carriages the problem is actually more evident than with 00 because, though the track gauge is the same, the distance between the length of the buffer bean and the width of corridor connections is 7/8ths smaller.

Yes definately Peco seems full of compromises. I can do either throat. The good thing about minories is it pushes the throat to the left (near the back scene) meaning if I am to add a curved section it will allow the whole lot to fit inside 2m using 762mm radius curved track therefore allowing the goods bravo to fit in with 610mm curved track

 

I would post a plan but... the internets messed up again!

 

(Edited as I managed to fix it!)

Edited December 17, 2017 by danstercivicman

[danstercivicman]

Here's a version using Peco Large Y (SL-98)   

 

It has a more pronounced division between the two layers (top 85mm) lower baseboard height.

[danstercivicman]

Well Christmas sees a new unit arrive from my mum and dad (and gran)...

 

Its the wonderful Heljan Class 128 DPU!

 

A smooth runner and Hatton's bargain  

 

 

[danstercivicman]

A belated happy Christmas everyone! Prob best to wish a happy new year!

[danstercivicman]

Managed to get some running in tonight.  

 

Minories really is a brilliant set up!  When you want a session of building running and moving trains it is very satisfactory

 

 

[danstercivicman]

The Meat/Fish Train is gradually gathering wagons...  I'm doing one wagon per month for this and the banana train so hopefully when it gets to March 2018 there will be a few more!  

 

The loco is of course my Crab, which is ironic as its hauling fish...   I do like the Crab.  It looks ugly and elegant all at the same time! 

 

 

[Pacific231G]

Managed to get some running in tonight.  

 

Minories really is a brilliant set up!  When you want a session of building running and moving trains it is very satisfactory

It is when it's as well executed as yours.

[danstercivicman]

It is when it's as well executed as yours.

Thank you The next one will be even better!

[danstercivicman]

Well...

 

We are moving house! 

 

That means the layout will have to change.   At present there is no perm location I can find for it so instead I am thinking about a portable layout with 3m scenic space and 1.8m of fiddle yard.

 

What do you all think to this design?

 

 

[lezz01]

Hi there.

I like the plan but you need a facing crossover from the down to the up lines or you can't access the top two platforms from the down line coming into the station. Unless you are having an arrival platform and shunting the train to a departure platform or is that what you intend?

Regards Lez.Z.

[danstercivicman]

Hello,

 

Cheers

 

Yup arrival platform it is, then a shunt for the ECS, maybe minories would be better...

[bike2steam]

For OO gauge, Shinohara scissors crossovers are superb space savers.  

[danstercivicman]

For OO gauge, Shinohara scissors crossovers are superb space savers.

They are, I had a set of them but sold them as the layout is so far away from ever being built!! Also they have no latching blades so need motors...

[aac]

Well...

 

We are moving house! 

 

That means the layout will have to change.   At present there is no perm location I can find for it so instead I am thinking about a portable layout with 3m scenic space and 1.8m of fiddle yard.

 

What do you all think to this design?

To make the most of available siding space, I would move the bottom point kicking back off the long spur further to the left, thereby allowing the two kick- back sidings to be longer. I doesn't affect what you do with the long siding, so much as add some shunting puzzle thought to movements in that area. If you have sound, this is ideal for hearing brakes, squeals and buffer clank.

 

aac