Lacathedrale

Well, objectively the 'complex' throat is shorter and so not quite as hard up against the baseboard edges, and has a knock on effect of increasing the platform lengths of the two south platforms by 6" - but I think you're right that the simple throat does not look more elegant. I have released as per my latest blog entry, that I should really be using 12' straight-planed, loose-heel switches instead of B-types to properly represent 19th century LNWR trackwork. Certainly, I don't NEED to - but why not? I have updated the simple throat to v2.0, using B6 turnouts for the dock and loco siding. The net result is a few inches of space saved, and an increase of the minimum radius by another 3" on the approach tracks - so I'm going to take that as a win! It looks like there's a kink coming out of the turnout into the southernmost platform road, but it is just the nature of the straight planed switchblades and the set for them.

Buliding a section of test track is a great shout. I am not planning on modelling inside valve gear, rather simply that I don't need to worry too much about outside valve gear when it comes to side-play, just connecting rods and splashers/steps/etc.

Baseboard Construction I've always thought of myself as fairly handy, but if there is one model railway task I have come to loathe it is baseboard construction. With that in mind I have happily outsourced the problem to Grainge and Hodder. They offer custom sizes in addition to those on their website, and so as per the Layout Plan entry, I have ordered them there - they are 100mm tall, 400mm wide (except the station boards, which are 450mm). I've built a traverser in the past, but having it arranged for me to just snap together is making me excited rather than dreading it! I note that as of yet I've paid for but not recieved the boards (ETA: January) Approach Viaduct or Embankment Considerations One of the characteristics of modular baseboard layout design I've found is how flat everything looks, and so to that end I have requested the fabrication of some offset connectors to drop the curved boards down 100mm below the level of the others. This will allow me to build up an embankment, viaduct, etc. and get some Z-axis variation going on. For a London-based layout I'm inclined to think that a viaduct would make the most sense, but something in my heart suggests that a windswept embankment may be more fitting for somewhere north of the Peak District? TBC! Embankment and retaining wall at Mirfield

Changelog: 2/12/21 - Initial Draft 3/12/21 - Removal of throat options 15/12/21 - Removal of track standards discussion from this entry Overall View Minories is a small urban terminus layout designed by Cyril Freezer to promote TT Gauge, the arrangement of two facing branch crossovers permitting simultaneous arrival and departure to the station, and ensuring they must only navigate one reverse curve. My layout is a fairly as-wrote Minories, the only concession to originality being the additional departure-only platform 1. The baseboards consist of two 4'6 x 18" station boards shown below, two 45 degree corner boards, and a 4' traverser as a section of main line and fiddle yard. The overall footprint is an 8' x 13'6" L-shape: Track Plan v2.1 - Updated 15/12/21 From top to bottom - Pilot locomotive shed, P1, 2, 3 4. With reference to the track plan, P1 (top) was originally drawn as a dock. While @t-b-g does make an excellent point that the dock's use as a non-platform location to store stock is lost - but i am considering the operation of my prototype inspiration, where there are a number of operational kinks that can be adopted to mitigate against losing the unique appearance: The original station had distinct arrivals (P4, bottom) and departures (P1, top) platforms. The shorter platform siding (P3) already has a carriage dock, leading to the cab stand on the other side of P4 In later years the station effectively dedicated the two inner platforms (P2 and P3) for newspaper and parcels traffic. None of these are particularly evident on the track plan apart from the departure-only P1, but I hope will make up for the unique look of the dock siding.

I'm definitely not interested in starting a gauge war - I want to try both EM and P4 and see how it shakes out. Thank you for pointing out the missing slide rail chairs, that would have been an embarassing mistake. I did not factor in that 'special' chairs will replace standard chairs, so while an upfront cost, will ultimately save money through economies of scale. The Exactoscale timber packs you reference at 65 per, those are 1.6mm thick? I gather that the flex they supply must also be 1.6mm thick, presumably to 8'6" sleeper lengths? Are the exactoscale fishplates also the 'H' shape like C&L?

Thank you @Andy Kirkham - I didn't see the big version!

Oh come now, lads: I've got baseboards ordered, some stock kits to hand, defined layout plan, solid operational cues, etc. - I would have thought that's making a start! As we're well and truly beyond the stage of the Theory of Minories, I will stop polluting this thread with my specific plans and ideas and I'll leave that to a seperate layout thread. Thank you all, you're such a wonderful group to talk to about this stuff. In continuing the Minories-related content at least obliquely, with relation to setting a layout somewhere, I remember seeing this map and thought it would be an interesting prompt for layouts, routes and connections:

Sorry for the rather small question - I realise having gone back over a templot plan for a future layout that the minimum radius is not 4', but 3' - and there's no way at all to get around that in the space I have available. I had/am considering building this in P4 over EM or 00, but clearly this might be a problem. I see that Exactoscale supply gauge widened track bases, and of course it can be done with a triangular gauge too - but I'm just wanting to confirm that small, pre-group locomotives (2-4-0, 4-4-0, 0-6-0, inside valve gear, etc.) will be able to handle this without undue concern? EDIT: This page suggests a 0.2mm gauge widening should be sufficient for a three axles if no endfloat is possible at 900mm: https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5030

Thank you @Ravenser - after going through your blog I missed that connection. I have five of the Ratio Arc roof corridor kits, part built, winging their way to me as we speak.

I think I'm going to try to restrain my need to immediately push the layout to a place and time and then suck all the fun out of it completely, forget Bermuda - let's talk about somewhere like Wigan as a place fantastical and far away to site a layout. I say Wigan, but of course it could be anywhere. Now, where's the button I press to start an argument about whether this is doable in P4...

Very timely @hayfield thank you. i was just about to PM you directly about this! I'm looking at EM and seeing relatively inexpensive RTP points from the EMGS and even cheaper from British Finescale, but I'm starting to get curious as to whether P4 might be an option for me - starting as I am essentially from scratch for a pre-grouping project. I need to build 7 plain B7 turnouts. One thing I find incredibly hard to navigate is what is actually required when looking at the various stores pages. I believe i've got it down here - but can you/anyone confirm? The following is from the EMGS to get started: Exactoscale S1 chair x500 £20 20x 500mm B/H NS Rail - £9.50 100x Exactoscale Check, L1 and M1 Chairs £25.50* Track Gauge Set - £19 TOTAL: £74 From the S4S to get started: Exactoscale S1 chair x500 £20 20x 500mm B/H NS Rail - £ 11.50 100x Exactoscale Check, L1 and M1 Chairs £25.50* Checkrail, Flangeway and Triangular Gauges: £21.70 TOTAL: £78.70 Per turnout one then buys: Exactoscale Common Crossing Chairs - £2 Exactoscale A/B/C Switch Chairs - £2 Assorted length turnout timbers x62 - £5** This is of course excluding the blade filing and crossing jigs - another £78! So really the upfront cost of £90 for the first turnout is very painful, but by the fourth turnout you're the price per turnout is now below the cost of an RTR point. * I know that strictly speaking the Check, L1 and M1 chairs are not required - but if we're going to the point of hand building track in P4 (for example) then it would be foolish not to, wouldn't it? ** £3 for exactoscale turnout bases, £5 for assorted length timbers, £8.50 for laser cut ply Would you recommend the 0.8mm or 1.5mm sleepers or timbers, starting from scratch? Does anyone produce EM or P4 flex track bases with 9' sleepers or is that going to be a fun exercise in tedium?

Is a self-contained Minories layout a good format for a finescale experimentation? The below snippet shows the same layout with B7, B6 and Peco 'Long' Radius turnouts on a Minories throat on a 4'6" board: Both standard offerings are available RTP (Peco or as near as, with British Finescale) in EM or 00-SF. Peco obviously only in 00. For a Minories layout using those points available to CJF from the Triang range way back when, there is no longer any barrier of handlaid track construction. For a pre-group layout, there are off the shelf 'get-you-started' RTR offerings for some companies. While there's incremental extra cost of re-wheeling existing rolling stock of approximately £1.50 per axle if they can't be re-gauged, in the grand scheme of things IMO this is essentially a moot point. Once you are beyond the pale of Hornby and Bachmann, then kit and scratch building is required as a matter of course. Striking P4 from the record for a moment for the sake of compensation complexity, if one is kit building then it appears to be little difference in building and buying components for EM vs 00. The major strikes against finescale construction and re-wheeling in the past for me have been primarily around locomotives with outside valve gear, which is not a huge issue in pre-group. In my LNWR example, a Webb Coal Tank and the forthcoming Improved Precedent would need to be re-gauged, re-wheeled, re-axled, etc. - what does this process look like from a practical standpoint? I know that Alan Gibson/Markits/Romford/Ultrascale all supply wheels and axles but I've not actually ever done an RTR conversion! EDIT: removed inflammatory P4 content

Well I've pulled the trigger on some part built ratio LNWR coaches, so I guess I'm building an LNWR Minories.

@jamieb thank you, I will do just that. Having sat with the LNWR and LBSC pictures infront of me I was undecided, but have pulled the trigger on some Ratio Arc Roof coaches so my bets are now on the LNWR - or at least, an LNWR service at an LBSC station!

Probably the most enjoyment I've had over the last year or so modelling was putting together the Ratio GWR Iron Mink kit, and I realise that I'm probably a little less fastidious about accuracy than I thought I was I've heard frequently that the venerable ratio GWR 6 wheelers can be hacked around to form a number of approximate pre-group carriages. I'm blessed to have come across @James Harrison's blog showing more - Hornby Clerestories and Caledonians to GCR coaches, Triang dock shunters to finely detailed Great Central saddle tanks. I'm in the throes of planning a terminus to fiddle-yard pre-group layout, and considering my options. I think it probably makes sense to stick with the LB&SCR being my home territory and local railway, but I am craving what the LNWR can offer in terms of interesting designs and lovely contrasting rolling stock. I appreciate that the Ratio Arc Roof carriages are 'close enough' with decent bogies and wheels - but what else? Can anything be done with these widely available kits as repaints and cut-and-shuts rather than out-and-out scratchbuilds?

Checking out Tonbridge Wells (West) on Wikipedia has made me feel rather maudlin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunbridge_Wells_West_railway_station

@RJS1977 short of 6", they're about 125mm each. The layout would be approx 12' x 8'. @Zomboid that's a lovely plan and setting. An N, Schools, T9, Beattie Well Tank, etc. would all look stunning. I've got a huge gap in my knowledge about most non-London, non-South East terminii that I really don't know how to fill, so I always default back to those well trodden paths and the ineveitable conclusion that by the SR Olive period, anywhere I'd want to model was electrified. I do think that a breath of fresh air might be required - GCR? LNWR? Something I'm not quite so intimately familiar with.

Reading page 9-10 of Klapper's "London's Lost Railways" I wonder how much we have been sleeping on Earls Court as inspiration. Though extant as a through station, it was for a time a terminus for Midland services from St Pancras via South Acton on the Super Outer Circle, and as circular services were curtailed was a terminating point for LNWR services from Broad Street via NLR on the outer Circle, and Metropolitan services on the middle circle. Though not passing through it was only a stones throw away from LSWR trains from Euston to Waterloo, and LBSCR trains from Willesden to Victoria.

@t-b-g it's here: @Nearholmer The traverser can be flipped end on end (since it's fully symmetrical) and traverse 'outward' from the curve. Mounting a low screen on the back (in home orientation) would become a gentle view block in exhibition orientation. To function effeectively it would need a short 'joggle' baseboard inserted to align the ends of the boards (not the track) so that the traverser can then be used properly - but painted in a matt black like the FY would not be onerous. Standard and Joggle inserted: Maybe some seasoned exhibitors can chime in on this one - it's not clear to me on the impact of operating from the front or rear, solo or as a pair/trio is - but I am working under the assumption that you want your traverser moving away from the public, rather than into them!

Yes, if all goes to plan then there may well be ballast over the sleepers anyway! I do enjoy and am able to hand track, so maybe I could join the EMGS and sort myself out some supplies (for the third? time in 4mm/ft) before I commit. I seem to remember being fairly underwhelmed when I joined last time. I think my inclusion of a dock and relying on B7's is what's stretching the throat boards to 4'6"? I've superimposed some standard board sizes (1350mm x 400mm scenic, 900mm corners boards, and a 1200mm x 400mm traverser) and all fits with space to spare. I know it's a vanity, but if I have to build another baseboard from scratch I think I'll lose it, so Grainge and Hodder can supply these pre-cut and ready for use. I've also just discovered templot's diagram mode, which is a little easier on the eyes than the Night scheme I normally use to draw. You may notice I have curved the up main turnout at the exit of the throat. This has the effect of easing all curves to 4'8" radius. While it does preclude appending the traverser directly onto the station boards for a straight setup across one wall of the garage, I think it's a no brainer? Of course, one of the tenets was a layout which is potentially exhibitable, so I measured up my VW Golf's boot and I have space to spare: 1400mm from the back of the passenger seat to the rear of the boot, 1000mm width and at least 400mm height - so the two scenic boards stored ontop of each other would fit well, the traverser and stock boxes alongside. Whether it would be better take along the 45 degree corners too, or instead figure out a small 'joggle' board to straighten out the tracks and offset the traverser to the correct facing and direction I think is probably a question for later.

@t-b-g I'm essentially agreed with you on all counts, re: the ugliness of the scissor FY. I figured it was worth the experimentation, though. While I want to get started quickly, I don't need to get finished quickly. I think if I get wrapped up in hand laying track, as much as I enjoy it, I'm not going to be able to achieve escape velocity, but maybe with British Finescale there's an answer? His range is limited to B7's at the moment, so I had a go to see whether just plain, straight EM B7's would fit on two 4'6" boards, and they do - just! The curve is a plain 3' radius curve, I've not quite figured out how to do transitions the way I can easily in xTrkCAD yet. The throat board exits perpendicular to its board edge, so it can connect up directly against the traverser for 'exhibition' mode - so that's nice! Speaking of getting started - I'm so pleased that in 4mm there appear to be some meaningful pre-group options available off the shelf. It seems most lines have a couple of locos and coaches to get you going from Hornby/Dapol/Bachmann. The fact that any futher stock would need to be kit built, is the only reason why I'm even entertaining the idea of EM at this point.

You're totally right of course, hence my reluctance to go down that route and my thoughts of starting the layout in the Grouping-era and working backwards as I put together a pre-group stock roster. @woodenhead not at all -but KS is much more of a finescale diorama than the kind of intense train-focused operation I'm looking at for this - parallel enquiries, where one flounders the other can flourish.

@Regularity I'm going (probably) for DC - maybe RC, I hadn't really thought far enough ahead except 'no bloody computers'. I've run your changes through on the xtrkCAD file and it works a charm - but I'm not sure what I'd do with that extra length. It would permit the platform roads to be slightly longer, but the limiting factor is still the traverser: Re: loco stabling ahead of the traverser - if we assume that 'large loco with lots of coaches' is an outlier rather than the regular, that seems like a fine proposition to overcome the extra few inches otherwise required. Thank you for the information on the Coulter FY - I think I need to 'run' the Minories layout for a while to see how much fiddling of the fiddle yard is required. A quick sketch shows that it's possible to get a scissors crossover and a pair of turnouts using Peco geometry. A very quick sketch-up in Templot suggests it would have a larger minimum radius (30" to 48"), but I'm not quite ready to pull the thread of whether to hand lay track yet... The FY roads are generously spaced and have more than enough room for the top-and-tail method. Additionally, the wedge created by the curved double scissors does permit the vestige of a suburban island platform (think: Ludgate Hill, Spa Road, etc.) to justify the scissors being visible, while still maintaining a full train length under the St. Giles box block section, and Slipcote Road's block section extends a little way on the mainline to realistically permit light engine movements between the two wings of the scissors. I of course note that St. Giles/Minories hasn't changed at all. It looks like I could build the station modules and the first of the 45 degree curves and would be able to handle 3 coach trains 'on layout'. Whether it would be worth setting up a cassette system while the FY options shake out is up for debate... In the meantime I'm going to pop over to the pre-group area and ask about availability....

I'd seen photographs of those bizarre wooden? single road terminus platforms at Moorgate but couldn't puzzle it out - thank you! Funnily enough I think Moorgate is how I would probably seek to model my Minories variant - though HV is close to my heart I'm not sure I can take another attempt at building a triple-baseboard viaduct.... While on a client call today I mused a Marylebone-style MPD from a trailing point on the down line - one siding for locos to be coaled, one for a wagon, and the turntable itself: Or from the middle of the throat: Upfront I think this looks like it could be an interesting addition, but I think it would need to be pondered. Maybe something where the option is left open, but not implemented upfront.

Interesting - I know that the GER were famous for their Jazz service with outbound locos attached to the rear of inbound trains and shooting off in very quick succession, but I've not heard much elsewhere? No doubt a gap in knowledge there... Either way, variety is the spice of life and doing some fiddling (ha!) with the 8' Minories layout pictured above, every combination of large/medium/small locomotives and three or four 48' or 54' bogie coaches works fine except a 'Long Train' of a large 4-6-0 and four 54' coaches, where only a small pilot loco fits. The 'Long Train' is already larger than I had set as my minimum so I'm pleased it fits at all. While I think there ought to be some logically elegant way of managing moves for a 'Long Train' but as @Zomboid has pointed out, maybe it's a once-per-session princess which fouls pointwork and generally makes life miserable for the signalman at St. Giles?