Minories Layout doodling

[JohnR]

I was thinking/dreaming of a potential future layout , to be house in a potential future 10x6 shed. I came across/recalled plan 37 in the latest version of 60 plans, which puts a Minories style terminus on a 8x5 board, with an out-and-back run looped, complete with loco depot in the loop.

 

Freezer noted the various issues etc, so I wondered how it would look slightly expanded to 9'6x5'6 for the inside of that hypothetical shed. 

 

So I've got longer platforms at the terminus - the short platforms could easily hold 2x 2-car DMUs/EMUs, for instance, with the longer platform easily holding a more substantial outer sububurban/semi-fast train.

 

I've also included a suburban through station, partly for those shorter local trains to stop at. But I'm not really sure its right. 

 

I'd be interested to hear peoples thoughts on what is a bit of a flight of fancy.

 

 

[Flying Pig]

Unless you've got arms like a gibbon, that yard in the bottom right corner will be unreachable once you wrap a shed round the layout.

 

Does it work if you drop the return loop to a lower level and slide it under the terminus throat?  I would then use the space inside it for semi hidden sidings and possibly arrange a sneak off from the main line at the back so there is continuous running at least in a clockwise direction.  Of course this is a sort of simplified Crewelisle.

 

Edit - I mean by ditching the bay and link at the suburban station so that the gradient can extend as far as possible.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Flying Pig

[JohnR]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

Unless you've got arms like a gibbon, that yard in the bottom right corner will be unreachable once you wrap a shed round the layout.

 

 

Yes, I'm in two minds about that in any case - its not really likely to have such a facility in the first place, and of course, if modern image, probably completely redundant. Same with the loco depot. 

 

Quote

Does it work if you drop the return loop to a lower level and slide it under the terminus throat?  I would then use the space inside it for semi hidden sidings and possibly arrange a sneak off from the main line at the back so there is continuous running at least in a clockwise direction.  Of course this is a sort of simplified Crewelisle.

 

Edit - I mean by ditching the bay and link at the suburban station so that the gradient can extend as far as possible.

 

I was kind of hoping to avoid gradients where possible. 

 

[Flying Pig]

8 minutes ago, JohnR said:

Yes, I'm in two minds about that in any case - its not really likely to have such a facility in the first place, and of course, if modern image, probably completely redundant. Same with the loco depot. 

 

Modern image is a very vague term, but for anything from the 1970s onwards you can bin the MPD and use the station sidings for stabling locos and DMUs.  That would give you the access you need to the station throat and I'd make the right hand hole the main operating well and arrange the return loop accordingly.  It would still be useful to have some storage, but the operating well would already be quite cramped.

 

I'd still dump the bay and link back to the return loop.  Partly it seems too soon for a train to terminate after leaving the main station; partly I can't stand double slips on running lines (unless you're modelling Forrin where they seem pretty widespread) and redesigning with plain points would eat a lot of space.

 

[DavidB-AU]

Freezer's plans don't really work with modern track geometry. Some of them barely worked with Triang Series 3!

 

This is a very quick and dirty edit without checking the geometry. If it's modern era with mostly DMUs, I can't see a need for the balloon loop. That just takes up space and complicates the electrics. You could achieve the same operational outcome simply by having an "off stage" fiddle yard on the same side as the Minories station. Possibly under the Minories station. There is also the option of a continuous run. The MPD can be assumed to be somewhere in the "off stage" bit and LE/ECS movements from the terminus to the fiddle yard are not unreasonable.

 

 

Anyway, some food for thought.

 

Cheers
David

 

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by DavidB-AU

[Chimer]

On 13/06/2022 at 10:12, Flying Pig said:

Unless you've got arms like a gibbon, that yard in the bottom right corner will be unreachable once you wrap a shed round the layout.

 

 

As importantly, the terminus throat is unreachable.  If you ditch the yard, you could have an emergency manhole in the bottom right corner.   If you ditch the MPD, you can have a second op well, as Flying Pig suggests.  But for maximum operational fun and variety, you need both, and of course (imh steam-age o) mostly loco-hauled ops.  So for me the original design has interesting potential, but comes complete with that very obvious practical difficulty.

[Flying Pig]

On 16/06/2022 at 07:51, DavidB-AU said:

Freezer's plans don't really work with modern track geometry. Some of them barely worked with Triang Series 3!

 

But this one clearly does apart from the problems of access and when the main station is a terminus an out and back scheme has advantages for a solo operator.

 

1 hour ago, Chimer said:

But for maximum operational fun and variety, you need both, and of course (imh steam-age o) mostly loco-hauled ops.

 

I'm not at all convinced you do.  I think MPDs are overrated as features on models and tend to end up as space-hungry dumping grounds for spare locos.  A simple offscene loop feeding light engine movements to and from the terminus would be just as effective.

 

So I think one way to make this work might be to increase the size of the return loop by making the diagonal curvier (which would probably mean deleting the bay at the through station- no loss IMO) and operating from the expanded right hand well.  The hard to reach part is now the buffer ends of the platforms which should be acceptable provided your chosen coupling system works (and there would still be emergency access - just - from the left hand loop).

 

[DCB]

 

On 16/06/2022 at 07:51, DavidB-AU said:

Freezer's plans don't really work with modern track geometry. Some of them barely worked with Triang Series 3!

Freezer plans work with Peco Streamline and similar tracks from the 1960s.  Unfortunately the curved diamond he frequently uses, which may be Farish is no longer available and peco points are now generally one sleeper longer to make them more robust.  That said diamond apart I can't find any of his plans which can't be built.

 

Freezer plans don't work with Triang, std, Series 3, Super 4 or System 6 track, Hornby and Peco set track as they have 50mm track spacing not 60mm Set track, but experienced modellers with advanced bodgery skills can make his plans from older tracks using a hacksaw, a file and a tub of pipe weld solvent.   Many don't work with DCC as the gradients are beyond modern locos, a CJF era K's 43XX Mogul pulls 12 wagons up a 1 in 25 a Dapol one manages 5.