Lacathedrale

Just spent the last hour trying to get Inskcape to behave to draw a track plan for a signalling layout - so you'll have to deal with my scribbling for now: Red are passenger lines and require FPLs and Blue and Purple are non-passenger lines, the Purple represent traps. I haven't bothered to number turnouts yet, I figure that I should at least get the rough layout of the signals sorted, since they're quite mutable at this point. I've already realised I've forgotten to include a shunt signal from the up main back into the station throat :) Rough signal demarcations: Platform 1 home " " 2 " " 3 Platform 1 calling on/shunt signal " " 2 " " 3 Runaround shunt signal spare spare spare Platform 1 starter " " 2 " " 3 Platform 1 shunt signal " " 2 " " 3 Carriage Siding shunt signal Runaround yellow shunt signal Pilot siding shunt signal P3 headshunt shunt signal (probably not required in reality) Dock shunt signal (should be on the other side of the turnout facing the other way - nothing required in this spot?) Advanced starter (in order that the up main can be used for shunting without contacting the next box) Seems roughly correct to me? I appreciate the proliferation of shunt signals may have been managed by hand signals from the box, but the interaction of them with block sections a-la Buckingham or Bodmin is something I would like to emulate if possible.

Thank you so much for the thoughtful discussion, I'm always up for a trackplan chit-chat - but the track plan is not really up for discussion at this stage. It may be when tracks are laid and it becomes obvious that one orientation is superior to the other that I will amend my plans, but for now - with the possible exception of the additional P2 to Up crossover mentioned by @Regularity, it's set. On that note, I have recieved all of the trackage required for the layout (sans the single RH point for that additional crossover), but obviously still a few weeks out for baseboards. I also have recieved my various locomotives (A1, E4 and H2) and one rake of Hornby LBSCR coaches, so that's nice!

I also have found satisfaction in Dover Harbour (not Marine) station - initially a terminus with two platforms, four tracks and only one runaround. It then sprouted connections in all directions - a through line to the Admiralty Pier, a carriage/goods siding behind the Up platform, and a strange skewed connection around underneath a movable section of platform. View showing the original terminus end of the station A view towards London, showing the track under the movable platform section. It was another one of those stations adjacent goods facilities and so needed none of its own, but the carriage siding behind the Up platform (where the carriages are stationed in the above photograph) was used for the loading and unloading of coal wagons/etc. The shuffling of carriages to the Admiralty pier and and vans around to the others using Dover Harbour as a pseudo reversing terminus would make a compelling justification for a Minories-style operation, I think! The station lost its overall roof and became a fully through station early on, but the station buildings and chimney still remain. @Pacific231G a 'half minories' in this case was only using half of the station throat, the final connection of the lower platforms to the outbound line was off-layout.

You know, I thought to myself 'the traverser tracks must be orthogonal to the baseboards', but of course they don't, do they? Your rather track-intensive plan is interesting. I think I like the straight-on extended dock. Brighton Victoria 1.2 - Rotated The plan is rotated by a few degrees - not by much - about 2 degrees? but this allows the foreground to have a little more space, Not sure if I'd do it but it's an option, for sure. Also, even if it's not used as a headshunt, the cobbled track provides a trap for the two sidings so is probably required anyway!

OK, failed experiment then. The original plan of the carriage sidings/loading dock in the foreground-middle, and nothing on the headshunt/cobbled area makes the most sense. If the loading dock or cleaner's walkway is off-scene to the front of the layout, I can figure out what works as I go along.

I actually have Pryor's book - but I also have dimensioned drawings of the LH box (and being a contemporary south coast LBSCR box of equivalent size I felt it was the most appropriate). I'm very up for scratchbuilding, and ideally would like to go that route. I guess I can use @t-b-g's scribing method on arched windows under the signalbox as well as the signal box panes themselves.... The problem with widening the track plan much more (i.e. with the angled dock) is that while I have a few inches to play with in the background, I can't really shift everything back, because iit then limits the traverser travel, which is already offset to the rear by 50mm. Your thoughts however, have suggested this might be a more suitable allocation to the sidings: Brighton Victoria 1.1b - Carriage swap and angled dock I think it might be half a dozen of one versus six of another - the carriage sidings are in a slightly less usable location, requiring a reversing move by the train engine, or a runaround by the pilot - but the other siding is now usable as a perishables/horse/loading-dock. Maybe an idea to just leave them both as flat expanses for now, and see which moves are more annoying operationally? :)

Thanks @Nick C - I guess you mean RailModel? I had al ook at the drayton box and it seems to be OK @t-b-g - but I wonder if https://railmodel.co.uk/collections/frontpage/products/leamington-south-junction-signal-box-4mm might be more appropriate? It would need new windows, but other than that appears to be a good match if slightly larger? i could cut it down to the same size as the LH box by chopping down alongside the third window in the base, but then would also need a new roof and at that point I guess I may as well scratchbuild?

@Regularity that is a fair point, I had not seen that connection either. It does add a pretty groovy S-curve though: The four extra point and FPL levers just about fit into the LH frame, to no dramas there!

Structural Mockups I've made some mockups for the prototype structures I'm thinking of including: The signal box prototype is of Littlehampton, a typical LBSCR box built 1901.The box is still extant and in use (with some nearby SR rail-built semaphores!). The lever frame is at the rear, which contains 44 levers which I estimate to be about the right amount for BV. It is approximately 22' x 12' and 17'6" to the eaves. The water tower is an example from Sheffield Park, which I initially picked because it was the only one I could find on LBSCR territory - but I realise it may well have been a transplant rather than original. It is 22' x 14' and the brick base is 24' high. The tank ontop overhangs, with a capacity of about 20,000 imperial gallons. Scratchbuilding help? I have no idea how to scratchbuild these in plasticard though. Slaters flemish bond plasticard for the main structure and presumably Wills arches for the arches - but I can't find any normal windows to match the window arches? Similarly, I can't find any etched windows which are even remotely close to the Littlehampton box style of four-pane, 5'4 x 3'2. Oh well! Trackplan P1 extension sounds fairly reasonable to me, @Flying Pig. Some interesthing permutations to play with. I had not thought about a perishables dock.

I've never come across the Met Vine Street goods depot and as a layout design element it's actually quite genious! Thank you for linking it, @Nearholmer- The typical road-bridge-view-block can have an upper-level entrance to the goods shed, and the lower level can have maybe just the archway/lift and end of the platform. At only a foot long, you might be able to make it self contained in the FY boards. Layouts like Wolverhampton West Park show that this model is workable and satisfying visually, but my (meagre) experience of this is exactly as you have described: I was operating a half-minories solo - and there was a need to shunt into the FY for every movement, and for every runaround move. For a tightly edited video series (I'm thinking "Bradfield Gloucester Square"-style) it would have been fine, and I'm sure would have worked well for an observer - but it fell down completely as an operator, as the suspension of disbelief was interrupted every time with the very unrailway-like shoving of the traverser roads. That said, I have made a compromise on my layout so that it can be operational in three boards: platforms - throat - FY. I accept that this is not an ideal scenario for the reason above mentioned, but it does get me 'in the door' and the goal is to include a fourth board with a stretch of track up to an advanced starter, to permit all moves to take place on-layout.

For what it's worth, I've finally started building a Minories.... https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/172744-an-edwardian-lbscr-terminus/ I had originally thought of a small goods shed in the foreground infront of the throat, as a view block as per Cyril Freezer's "Ultimate Minories" - I'm sure it's justifiable, but I think after researching Holborn Viaduct (i.e. the epitome of cramped Urban Terminus) which had both a tiny pilot loco shed adjacent the platforms, and had NO goods facilities at all execpt a loading dock) - I came to realise that the operation of freight trains and NPCS, which definitely happened at HV outside of peak hours between the LNWR, GNR, LSWR, and SECR does not neccesarily require dedicated goods facilities.

Stock LBSCR E4 No. 579 ex-"Roehampton" was built in July 1903. It was allocated to New Cross in 1911 after recieving its "L B S C" umber livery, so it must be working returning from a transfer trip between Brighton Goods and Brighton Victoria after the journey down from the big smoke... Baseboards The G&H baseboards order has gone through. I decided to bump up the width from 450mm to 500mm wide to give space for the carriage siding and cobbled area suggested by @Regularity and to break up all the parallelism a little. I have double checked this should fit in the back of my VW Golf! Brighton Victoria 1.1-kinked-slip I have shortened the platforms to end on the layout board breaks, the resultant space between the platform lines for water cranes, signal posts, the main WT being at the end of the loco pilot spur, to provide a view block between the end of the station and the retaining wall. My view on the two additional sidings is that it visually balances the throat, and though there's a fair amount of track at that point, with the additional width I don't think it's overbearing. I particularly like that it enables the on-layout storage of carriages in the 'phase 1' form, and some defined locations for carriage trucks, horseboxes and parcels trains - not strictly required but a source of justified shunting? I'm leaning towards their inclusion of these two extra sidings, but any thoughts gladly taken. It ends up being a bad idea, then the bit of open land in the foreground won't hurt. For reference, this is without: Brighton Victoria 1.0-linear Setting @C126 a captivating setting - I'm going to kick the can down the road a bit further, no nameplates or signs until I've figured out exactly what's going on with the location.

Thanks chum!

@jamieb my local village is Lindfield, I'm just around the corner. I had considered some interpretation of events where the BML had ended up going through Lindfield, and the Ouse Valley Railway plan was implemented in reverse to connect up to Haywards Heath to Uckfield, etc. - but I couldn't make it work from a logical perspective, as mentioned earlier in the thread the LBSCR didn't really 'do' termini that weren't on the coast. If you have any thoughts on how a double track, passenger-only terminus could fit into the premise I would be all ears. I think the main/only change would likely be the replacement of terraced housing and infrastructure behind the retaining wall, with an embankment and greenery. @RailroadRich I'm not going to be changing the track plan at this late stage, but may well be worth looking at Twells for operational suggestions, so I'll get on that. I have put my thumb in the air to determine how many levers we'd see at the Edwardian Terminus, then I reckon we've got about ten regular levers including two trap points, six FPLs, and about a dozen signals if we factor in ground-, shunt- and calling-on-signals. I reckon that whatever ends up in the foreground of the curve eventually will be ground frames. With that in mind, any suggestions for a 40ish lever signal box to model while I sit on my hands for baseboards to arrive? Looks like Littlehampton could be a good one!

After writing the justification for Brighton Victoria, and the research into Brighton coach rakes around 1908, I realise that it provides a solid basis for a freelance terminus in broadly the same area and time. Westward we have LSWR services, Eastward we have the SECR ones - but the rest would remain the same, so I think I'll kick that can down the road a bit. I'm quite fond of the retaining wall arrangement for the throat of Central Croydon so I may well include that over the end of the layout... G&H have come back with green lights for the baseboards - slightly extended from the above plan to 500m wide so that if the foreground carriage road is implemented, there's a bit of breathing room. They should be with me in 4-6 weeks, so in the meantime I can look at other bits and bobs for the layout. Maybe a signalbox? I think some structural modelling is well overdue...

Thank you! I’m very interested in the transition from gloss to Matt on the boiler cladding- is that a case of applying a wash and buffing it out in the middle of the panels, or are you using powders to dampen the glossiness?

Reading through the LBSCR carriage book for some example rakes, there are typically two sections to the Limited trains run by the company, the shorter of which contains a single Pullman car between standard company stock. What diagram would this likely be? Parlour First? And are there any RTR models of the relieve diagram appropriate for a 1903-1911? I know basically nothing about Pullman coaches but I understand that it should in theory be an eight wheeler with closed vestibules?

I have an open request to Grainge & Hodder baseboards to fabricate the baseboards for me (I cannot properly communicate how much I loathe baseboard construction), so while I'm waiting to hear back from that I figure I may as well put the research from LBSCR Carriages Vol 1-4 into practise. I think sorting out the carriage stock for this layout is going to be one of the most challenging parts, so let's get started. After some reading and alot of cross-referencing, I have put together four sets which were allocated to the London-Brighton route and noted where I should be able to re-marshall or re-use the 'expensive' bogie carriages across different train types using matching colours. Set numbers are my own reference! Set 10 Express: BS, PFK, LF, BT (Brighton Limited) Set 11 Express: BS, PFK, LF (City Limited) Set 20 Secondary: BLT, C, T, BT (Bogie Set) Set 21 Parcels: BLT, C, PMV, CCT, NPV (from a photograph) With these seven bogie carriages, I can create four different real formations and thus eight 'trains'. Obviously though, it wouldn't be a pre-group layout without oodles of 4w and 6w coaches, so here are some rakes which are allocated to the stretch around Brighton, and Three Bridges: Set 30 Branch: 4BT, 4T, 4F, 4T, 4B Set 31 Local: 4BT, 4T, 6F, 6LC, 4T, 6B (the 6B should be a 54' BT) Set 32 Local: 6LC, C, T, 6B Set 33 Branch: 54' DMT Note: I've had to smudge my finger over a couple of the 4w and 6w carriage diagrams to leverage the RTR offerings available, but I feel that it's close enough! Both Hornby and Hattons coaches have their problems: the Hornby models are of LBSCR prototypes but a bit flourescent, while the Hattons ones are more subtly detailed but don't fully correspond to LBSCR patterns, i.e. the shape of the brake end windows, the ducket shape and panelling style. How to bring this all together? The reason for all this hand waving and back-of-an-envelope scribbling is so I can find a very rough pathway from here (i.e. nothing) to a representative selection of trains on the layout. From the above, both Set 30 and 31 are being bought whole-cloth from Hattons and Hornby as a starting point, and from then I can slowly add to them to 'unlock' other formations. I appreciate that my final stock composition is likely to change, but for the sake of argument to achieve what I've set out above, I would need to build two etched kits (Roxey 54' Brake Third and 54' Motor Trailer), find an appropriate Pullman car kit/RTR, and build five Midland 48' Suburban coach kits (BT, BT as BS, T, C, F as LF) - which doesn't sound too bad at all really!

Speaking of 2-4-0T's, seems that Boxhill was thusly converted in 1905 and remained that way until 1913, so my shortly-to-be-arriving A1 "Boxhill" is going to need to be shorn a coupling rod or repainted into Umber... Turntable Re: turntable - it really will be too tight on the main board unless i commit to making the layout home-only and add a large bolt on section. It would fit on the inside of the Carriage sidings on the curved board - so either way a consideration after phase 1 and maybe worth playing by ear? Carriage Siding Not a bad shout on the adjacent carriage siding, it would fit. Maybe similarly I hold off on ballasting that part of the runaround permanently until the traffic needs of the layout are more apparent? I am a bit reluctant to have carriages blocking the main layout vista and having track right up to the baseboard edge, but I like the shape of the trackplan alot, and it may be that they need to be accomodated somehow and this would be a way to do it: Brighton Victoria 1.0a - Potential trackplan at the end of Phase 1? I am super aware that shunting into the FY is not going to be the most rewarding of operating processes, so I am keen to include the curved board for Phase 2 - maybe stabling the unused carriages at the dock or end of P2 will be sufficient until that board (and whatever it adds operationally) comes to pass?

Re: setting - it's kind of the crux: I am not really interested in a sleepy terminus served only by the occasional tank engine (which most of these sleepy seaside towns (and Central Croydon) would fit into) - the raison d'être of this layout is so I can operate an intensive mainline passenger service. I think with that in reality the only option is an urbanised setting at either end of the BML. I had considered siting the layout as the old L&CR platforms between the LBSCR and SER platforms at London Bridge, with the SER high-level through-line retaining wall as a backscene, but I must admit I like the idea of the layout being self contained rather than 'bitsa'. With that in mind... "Brighton Victoria" We hypothesise in the 1840's a standalone station was built for the Brighton, Lewes and Hastings Railway (i.e. what became the East Coastway Line) on the site of the Central Station's goods yard. Maybe in this alternate universe it was more cost effective to bulldoze more of the slum areas of the North Laine to re-site the goods yard, than to embark on the extensive earthworks required for the extending L&B station above? Think: Reading SR and GWR stations. The station's initial focus of providing extra platforms for the coastal services to Eastbourne and Hastings broadened over time into a more general use of the station with direct connection to the BML. It's seen as more convenient for travellers and excursionists visiting the newly opened pier and the racecourse, and for the railway company to segegate a portion of the coastway traffic away from the already busy Central Station. In addition to a mixture of semi-fast and stopping services fro the Capital, and a share of the coastway traffic, the London-Brighton "Castle Limited" runs via Lewes to BV (Not QUITE as fast as the Brighton Limited, which runs direct) so its patrons have time to enjoy a digestif before disembarking, and the morning Brighton Victoria-London "Director's Special" (Not QUITE as luxurious as the direct City Limited/"Stock Broker Special") runs a little bit earlier in the day for those tycoons who can't quite yet get away with a 11am start. This might be a bit implausible, but I've definitely come across layouts with more ludicrous justifications that worked out just fine in the end, so unless there's something so horrendously egregious about these presumptions, I'm going to crack on. Impact on Layout / Baseboard Design The main take-away is really that the baseboards can be relatively flat and do not particularly require open frame construction/etc. as the bridges, retaining walls, station buildings, etc. are all above the base of track level. Track will? be mounted on 10mm cork to provide for ditches and undulations in the foreground below sleeper level. On that note, the baseboards should fix together via bolts through the end boards, and the scenery organised so it does not clash - this should be fairly straight forward, with a total of 250mm clearance between baseboard surfaces when bolted together. I'm not sure whether to go for a hinged overall roof or individual canopies, I think I'm going to have to see how the rest of construction goes. @ChrisN if you can post a picture of underneath I would be most obliged! Expansion @Regularity that same plan was implemented in a form by @Dr Gerbil-Fritters in his shed - which is a tad larger than mine - and found to be wanting - but in principle I like the idea and so thank you for the email. I really must ensure my goal is focused on these three boards first. I can't really squeeze the throat of the layout any smaller, track is already on the way, etc. - but I feel like I have made as much provision as I can so that the layout can expand at a later date. Once I've got it running well, then I will consider my options. @t-b-g thank you for your advice - my specific bolded question was around the little headshunt on the runaround, rather than those on the corner piece - but with reference to those you make a fair point. What do you think of the little one below the main throat noted 'cobbled area' below? I wonder if it might form a useful layover siding while the layout is in linear mode? Sanity checking the Traverser & Train Lengths: One limitation I have that I'm not really going to be able to get around is the maximum traverser length of 4'6", so I spent the morning with LBSCR Carriages Volumes 3 and 4. I have found what I think will probably be the longest train on the layout, the London Bridge portion of the Brighton Limited. It consists of a 54' Brake Second + 48' Lav First + 63' Pullman First Kitchen + 48' Brake Lav Composite, pulled by one of the Marsh Atlantics. Happily, it fits in both my traverser and platforms (shown above as the multicoloured train about to enter on the down line in the diagram above). While I was doing this, I also noted that in 1909 there was a through service of SECR coaches from Margate down the coast through Hastings and into Brighton and back again - so maybe we'll see a couple of purple lake coaches after all...

I really love that contrast between glossiness and matt finishes on the locos you've weathered, are you able to share how you achieved that please?

Background This isn't my first rodeo, so for context I hope to introduce myself and what I've been up to with model railways since I got into the hobby as an adult! My name is William and I'm in my (now late) 30's living alongside the Brighton Mainline in Mid Sussex. I grew up in the maze of SER, LCDR and LBSCR lines in south-east London and though I've obviously no memory of loco hauled services, let alone steam - but the history of the lines that ran through the warren of cuttings and embankments always fascinated me; as a result I've never really wanted to model anything else -but I've never got far enough to say I'd actually modelled it. I undertook a number of layouts, learning lessons from each on the way, so far I've come to realise that: The prototype must be relevant and sustain interest over a period - I live adjacent the BML and various LB&SCR routes There cannot be too much upfront work before a layout is usable - I'm going with RTR Pre-Group and RTP track The layout must be 'more' than a simple inglenook, but must not sprawl to be unmanageable in scope or size - Limited initially to just a station platform/throat and fiddle yard. This layout is a compromise in more ways than one, but I'm hoping that it will allow me to have a layout which has a chance of being finished, exhibited, and enjoyed - rather than a perfect layout that never makes it past the planning phase. It's been very tough for me to come to terms with this, as I find it very easy to lose myself in research instead of getting things done (and risk getting them wrong) and so it's something I'm trying to focus on. Era My goal is to depict the halycon days of the LB&SCR in the Edwardian era. A 1903-1912 timeframe allows a very wide range of LBSCR stock: from Stroudley Terriers in Improved Engine Green to Marsh H2's, and from mahogany carriages from the 1870's (there was still a 4w third of 1860 on the books until 1908!) to full umber 54' bogie coaches. Theme My layout plan is to depict a secondary passenger terminus with goods facilities up the line where I can operate an intensive schedule: Market day? Diverted Boat train? Race day at the local course? A big part of what I'm trying to achieve is authentic operation - working signals, interlocking, bell codes, etc. are all something I'd like to include at a later date. The only thing I'm not sure about - is where to site this fictional station!? Any suggestions gladly taken for plausible locations! Track Plan The plan above depicts an urban terminus layout in 13'6" x 18" in linear form. It features a double-track approach into three platforms, with a runaround and a pilot loco pocket over two baseboards depicting a 9' scenic area. The fiddle yard will be a 4'6" x 12" traverser. It is my intent to model this to completion and exhibit the layout in this linear form, but there is a deliberate provision for the insertion of a 90 degree corner piece which will increase the visible running distance into the station and both a headshunt and a carriage siding - shown above with dashed lines - for an overall footprint of 13'6 x 8'6" in an L-shape. I'm not sure whether or not to include the headshunt at the front-right of the layout, any ideas? Location The location for the layout is currently set up to be the garage - it's a little inhospitable at the moment and plans are afoot for lighting, painting and some rubber flooring: Note, the board currently in place is/was designed for an N-gauge project which never really took off so may well end up at the tip, but is roughly at the correct height and orientation for the station. Baseboard Design My plan is to build the baseboards from 6mm ply both for the surface and backscene and ripped into strips as the sides, crossmembers and ends, and with a skin of 4mm ply to the underside of the boards as a stiffener. My plan is to use dowels for alignment and bolts with wingnuts for fixing. The idea is that both scenic boards can clamshell together and be bolted, so the layout can be transported. I've no practical experience of this, but I figure it can't be too hard! Any advice on this also appreciated! So far? Well, it may be a bit premature - so far the layout consists of some rolling stock and track components! However, I'm clarifying some final bits and pieces, and so I reckon that a thread may well be the best way to figure it all out! Questions in umber!

How's the layout going, Phil @Harlequin ?

Sorry for the slightly OT question (I did go back to check your plans but the RMweb image massacre of 2022 has rendered them invisible) - what's your rough distance between the rear track centreline and the backscene? You've got a really effective low profile thing going on beyond the railway boundary!

I should be clear that I am going to continue to tinker with models in EMSF on and off, in the way I have done so already; a few hours here and there building up some detailed kits and models - the result may be at some point in the future, enough to start a layout with - but not yet, and the pressure to produce for a layout is not compatible with how I want to deal with it!