Lacathedrale

I'm just coming across Dr. Lardner in both Red for Danger by LTC Rolt and "GWR in the 19th Century" which I picked up from the Talyllyn bric-a-brac shelves based entirely on being better educated for your posts, Mike!

I think i have hit a snag - the chassis etch is designed for inside bearings and I have never done these before in my life. The instructions are vague to the extreme, but it looks like this is how it's meant to look on the rigid end of the chassis? It is not clear to me at all what the purpose of the additional etched line is, and there is so much slop in the slots there is basically zero positive registration. On the bright side my new soldering station appears to be working well - I'm still getting used to it of course.

The solution seems to be to test as suggest, but also in general size to provision the terminus of the layout to be no longer than 9' - which would leave me enough space for a 4'6" traverser board in a straight 'FY to Terminus Exhibition Layout' arrangement. Either way then, I'm quids in!

😎 You can check out of layout planning threads, but you can never leave. Fantastic idea and agreed wholeheartedly. No need to plan further despite the comment above :) No sleepers laid unless you count the test turnout I made, but two scratchbuilt wagons - leave it to me, for now.

The reason I want a double track approach is due to the signalling and interlocking opportunities. Token working just doesn't have the same appeal and I know it's London-centric but anything less than a double-track doesn't feel like a real railway to me! You're 100% correct about the station building, though! I have found the Ricean layout Harestone which was inspired by Caterham: Tony Gee made a great comment about how more platform faces doesn't neccesarily correlate with more captivating operation, particularly if it's just more of the same, hence his evangelisation of departure-only and arrival-only platforms, and in my case the inclusion of the carriage dock on the HV plan. On the face of it, Harestone looks like a more simple layout, but it has the same pointwork plus an additional double slip compared to HV1874. From a prototypical operating perspective it has all it requires, with a (small) siding on the runaround loop and a coal siding, but I think it may be too simplistic as drawn - an additional siding and a goods shed, and a shunting neck alongside the running lines might fill it out considerably. I take your point regarding the setting - certainly the dappled shade of a tree lined valley and a horse waiting patiently alongside a coal dray conjures warmer feelings than the filth and detritous of Victorian London. It requires some thought!

Suburban (influenced by Caterham) I've often thought that Caterham was an attractive layout subject; having gone through various layout plans of both the pre- and post-doubling of the route; however I'm starting to wonder if a 'might have been' interpretation would be a good starting point as a setting for my terminus. It is attractive for quite a few reasons: Bracketed on each side by a higher-level road, steep hillside, and signal gantry & power station. Carriage sidings, a branch-line loco shed, and a notoriously crowded goods yard (at least before doubling) Had a rail-connected livery yard in one era, and a power station in the other. Had the largest army barracks to-date built in 1877, so presumably troop movements neccesitating larger trains. A quote from Scots Guards during the Boer war: "It was a trying journey as each man had to carry all his belongings, the march up hill from Caterham Station being a stiff and particularly difficult one." Unfortunately, the pre-doubling era while very compact is a single line terminus with little scope for complex operations; and after doubling the station ballooned to triple the length and double the width. A schematic of the post-doubling layout is shown below: The length of the two crossovers on the throat are misleading, infact they are the full length of a train! Urban (Holborn Viaduct) At the other end of the line (somewhat literally) is my affection for Holborn Viaduct - all of the justifications for Minories apply, as well as my natural affinity for the station and the numerous plans I've sketch for it. Early plans show a pilot loco shed and coal/water, no need for turntable on-layout Arrival-only and Departure-only platforms with no runarounds Carriage dock for NPCS and short carriage siding. Historical precedent and plausibility for interesting stock: short top link expresses (half boat trains), CIWL orient express coaches, lots of newspaper and parcels traffic (nearby Fleet St. and Post Office HQ Historical precedent for LSWR, LNWR, stock and locomotive presence. I have worked up a rough idea of how a 4 platform HV-inspired terminus might look in 2' x 9'. Some tweaks are no doubt required but for now I think this sketch is sufficient to illustrate the plan: HV-1874-v1 Lines: Loco shed (top) hosts a station pilot. P1 (departure only) P2 & 3 (bidirectional) P4 (arrival only) Ash pit (bottom) hosts a turnover loco for 'jazz' services. Operations: Boat trains: must arrive into P4 (bottom). station pilot shunts carriages into P1 to await departure. station pilot shunts head/tail into P3 dock train engine runs light off-scene down main to "Blackfriars" to be turned and serviced train engine returns on up main, shunts into P1 and departs down main Cheap/Workmen's trains must arrive into P4 (bottom). station pilot shunts and potentially splits carriages between P2/P3 train engine couples up for return journey bunker-first and departs down main in reverse, carriages in P2/P3 are joined to form outbound train in P1 Inner Suburban trains arrive into P2/P3 jazz service loco couples onto rear and departs down main Outer Suburban trains arrive into P2/P3 station pilot shunts carriages into alternate bidirectional platform to await departure. station pilot shunts head/tail into P3 dock (if required) Newspaper & Parcel trains must arrive into P2/P4 station pilot shunts into P3 Essentially we have long trains being split, joined or shunted - and we have short trains being shunted or 'jazz serviced' . I can see the appeal of both. It essentially seems to be a decision based on whether I want green trees and freight, or viaducts and NPCS.

I am carrying on with the stock build in my workbench, but now I'm stuck in the office for the day - I figure I may as well jot down some further thoughts about the layout. @Harlequin, @TJ52, @Keith Addenbrooke, @t-b-g have all been instrumental in helping form my ideas for what a terminus layout should be (Paddington-Seagood super-stylised approach aside) - and from the help provided I have generally gravitated towards one of two ideas: Holborn Viaduct with an adaption of the circa 1874 track plan, or Caterham with some synthesis of the pre- and post-doubling eras. Time to sketch some ideas (EDIT incoming)

Lovely! I am a member of the SECR Society, that's a good shout. Thank you for the pictures too - I think aged white and an indian red or purple-brown would be very distinctive and contrast well with the black and older holly green locomotives. Thank you.

I didn't find the Southern volume very useful, a huge portion of the book is dedicated to LSWR practise. I love my signalling books - still don't really understand how to figure out interlocking, though! The green book is more of a pamphlet but shows you exactly how it should be done!

Very admirable! I wish I was able to be so discerning - I always feel like I have "the one" but never get far enough into it to cement that position, so when the next shiny comes along then I'm easily distracted. I blame the internet - I can browse and research on my phone or during odd breaks at work, but can't so easily make physical things to anchor.

Interesting thoughts - though not related to the topic at hand admittedly. I guess shorn of Tri-ang, 3mm scale becomes (will become?) more like S-scale in that it has a certain goldilocks appeal (and oh how I pine for the idea that 3mm and S were the standard tabletop scales instead of 2mm and 4mm!) - but becomes so far the domain of competent scratchbuilders and advanced cottage-industry types, which effectively cuts the legs off external adoption by the unwashed masses?

I feel like I should know this, but I don't - I'd like to build some LCDR and SER structures; difficulty in finding extant prototypes aside - I realise I don't know what colour scheme they would have painted their infrastructure in. This site suggests a lack of conensus with two tone white, cream, buff or stone against a purple-brown, brown or indian red - https://www.stationcolours.info/southern-railway/ - is there anything more conclusive out there?

Not a bad shout at all! I've got the body done now, sans handles which are recommended to be done at a later stage: Unfortunately it seems someone in my house has been using the Cif cleaner I use specifically for neutralising flux and cleaning parts for ... cleaning the hob? Either way, I'm out of luck there and a dusting of primer will have to wait until tomorrow. Cheers!

5/32" scale (aka "4mm") is STILL TECHNICALLY IMPERIAL! A while back I bought an SER R-class 3D print, but baulked at the price of the chassis and wheels so instead I scratchbuilt some wagons out of styrene whicht was very enjoyable. Looking back at my 5/32" options for a layout I decided it was about time I got a working kit built locomotive chassis - but it has been a long time since I made a brass kit. S to whet my appetite I have broken open a fairly simple LNWR horsebox kit from London Road Models. LRM are well regarded, but I note this is branded as a D&S kit. I'm not sure if it makes much difference, it comes with LRM compensated W-irons, castings, etc. I have struggled on a bit further with my 25w iron - it's generally fine on smaller pieces or where there's a good amount of solder to aid heat transfer, but not at all useful in other places such as the laminations of the window frame and droplight into the side aperatures. Other than that has gone together fairly easily so far and has been quite enjoyable - I hope I can finish it tonight. Obligatory: It doesn't look that bad in real life, honest guv'nor!

Bought! Thank you!

I did specifically mention that anachronisms and shelf queens (i.e. the funny trains) within the context of Jenkinsonian thought are fine, on the assumption you have a set baseline for the 'real stuff'. Creativity is really tough without any boundaries at all "draw me a cool picture" is actually a lot harder than "draw me a picture of a house on a hill with a tree next to it". I'm (currently!) working on the ruthless cut off of anything built or scrapped post-1900 and it is strangely liberating.

Annoying, I live in HH and my garden backs onto the BML - but i never seem to get wind of anything going past until it's too late- is there a good place to figure this out?

I've been reading David Jenkinson's "Historical Model Railways" and he makes a good point that a single scale, gauge, period and prototype when settled on after a period of investigation is essential for long-term success. I'm terrible with that, having gone from Japanese N to Pre-Grouping Gauge 3 and (quite literally) every scale and time period between - but having a 'home base' in pre-group South Eastern railways is reassuring and positive. Some anachronisms or shelf queens are obviously not a problem at all, but I've suffered so much unneccesarily by having all these things which I can mentally justify as being important - but spread me far too thin.

I got almost finished with my 37 and got the same problem with the beaded varnish (this time over oils) - clearly I didn't wait long enough. Is there any way to salvage it or am I stuck with stripping and repainting?

Well, after that it all went to the dogs, so it went back into the cupboard. However, I have a new workbench: On the workbench is a London Road (nee D&S) LNWR Horsebox. I'm using an Antex 25w blue-handled job - but I can't help but think that a temperature controlled iron might be a good shout. Any recommendations?

Quite! I realised that even with a coarse approach I can't fit a system-layout in the space in 4mm - so if I'm relegated to an end-to-end terminus to FY it may as well be in finescale!

Would a check rail actually function? Interesting!

Hi Tony, the latest image is actually courtesy of Martin and not of my own making - so good spot on the dimensions and thank you - but it's only intent was to show the use of transition curves to get a longer usable space and easier running through the chicane of that 180 degree return. I will trawl through my 'moderately sized terminii' plan history and plug them into the space. I actually quite like your idea of using 4'ish x 18"ish boards so if I can constrain myself to around 9' maximum, then I should have room for both an linear end-on FY or wide curved mainline run around to a FY opposite the station. I think we essentially agree about scale and geometry, honestly! My aim was to start this thread with a broad idea and (eventually) some specific desires of what kind of layout I could build in the space I've available - as you've said it would be very different in 2mm or S7. I was really looking at this from the end result - and I wasn't hung up on which particular scale if it got me the railway model I wanted - and it was only after airing those ideas later, i.e. though it seems that 3mm may well be the goldilocks size for a layout - it's less than ideal for practical production of rolling stock! I have already built pointwork and stock in P4, and I have a 3D printed body awaiting a high-level chassis - so hopefully the three will cover your (quite right!) prerequisites for settling on a given gauge. I've also built pointwork, a loco conversion and stock in EM in the past and found it enjoyable too - but I think I have found P4 more enjoyable and rewarding SO FAR - with a caveat that I've not built a loco yet! I think I'll have a fair idea of whether P4 is feasible for me well before I'm too deep in to back out of it and across into EM or fully reassessed.

That's perfect, thank you! So just to be 100% clear, with a gauge widening of +0.25mm on a 800mm radius in the apex of the egg, I should be OK for 4-4-0, 2-4-0 and 0-6-0 locomotives? Obviously I need to test it - but if the principle is sound then I can forge ahead elsewhere with that ideal.

Design @RobinofLoxley I think the argument is that you then have a longer straight without a 90 degree curve in the middle and lose a mostly useless short-edge, even if that straight is only marginally longer. @Harlequin I agree re hidden track in principle and I think in this case with the sharp curves and gradient it's just a non-starter. Better to have a traverser bottom-left and station building upper-right to get me that length of run, I think. With 4' train lengths (see Period, below), I think that would give me enough lee-way for a halt, MPD or private siding after the 90 degree curve. I wonder what provisions I will need to take the minimum viable layout (i.e. the station boards + fiddle yard, hopefully something I can fit into 14') versus the main line approach with the 180 degree curve... @martin_wynne has put together an egg shaped transition curve which extends the visible section, bulbous-triangle-style for a bit longer and is fine for P4: Scale @t-b-g I disagree re: choosing scale first - I have a space (which I can't change) and what I want to achieve (which is somewhat mutable), so overlaying each t's a combination of what I want to achieve against what is possible in a given scale which will determine the scale, I think. it's only ever really been a race between 4mm and 3mm at a distant second place. Though I'm still interested in fiddling with 3mm and maybe 'the next one' would be done in 1/100 - but I think you, Phil, Keith, etc. are correct that 4mm (even with prodigious amounts of scratchbuilding) is an order of magnitude more straight forward and with less inertia. Gauge I'm a member of S4S and EMGS, and honestly I prefer what I see and have done in P4. However, I also appreciate that I've yet to feel the full force of what P4 demands having built only a couple of wagons and a turnout. So I think I'm going to aim at P4, with the understanding that if adversity strikes I'll fall back to EM and then in theory back to 00. I do know that I can get Peco EMGS points but I want to lay my own so that's not a deciding factor. Period Having settled on LCDR/SER/etc. in 1900 as the period, does have an implication for layout planning that bogie coaches were no longer than 45' or so. A five coach rake being pulled by a 2-4-0 or mid-Victorian 4-4-0 scales down to about 18" shorter than the equivalent train with 60' stock and a 4-6-0: Getting Started... I stand by @Keith Addenbrooke's recommendation of getting some stock built while the layout design percolates - which I am getting stuck into with a London Road Models LNWR Horsebox as we speak.