Lacathedrale

I think it may well be a commercial decision, the difference between their Ballast Wagon and non-Ballast Wagon sheets is literally a single sans-serif "B" and the addition of one tare/to-carry mark. Gareth, as connoisseur of all things SECR in N gauge, I was wondering if you had any LCDR monogram transfers I might be able to purchase from you?

I've just got to that bit -becoming a minerals-only line I think? And the next bit I think, where it is installed permanently in a room in Jan '66. When installed there were no changes to either station layout except the extension of the goods headshunt into a milk depot beyond the station (it looks great, and makes me think I should be accounting for a full depth station building and forecourt if possible...). It probably says alot about the layout whose track layout stayed the same for something like eight years, and whose essential character for eleven. I've yet to break out the IRSE green book about single line working, but I'm being convinced a suburban layout wouldn't be terrible. It seems after the Jan '66 there's a precipitous drop in Charford content, but I'm wondering if the OCR used for my search isn't working, so I'm back to working chronologically from where I left off, February 1957. Interestingly there's an article about building a pair of GWR Bulldogs and their double-frames, which is what I just asked about in the Kit Building area - my target scratchbuild to prove out my abilities in that manner is an outside framed LCDR 2-4-0T "Second Sondes"-class.

I cannot fully express how cross I am with Fox Transfers only putting one set of "SER" lettering transfers on their wagon sheets. There are tare and 'to carry' markings, large and small numbers, etc. to mark up half a dozen wagons - but they only give you of SER so you have to pay £5 per. I'm going to hand letter it, I don't care if it looks bad. Still very much WIP but slowly getting there.

I would like to scratch-build the chassis of a locomotive in 4mm to see if I can do it. I have access to a mill and a lathe, and I can do a bit of soldering. Building victorian locomotives means picking the least difficult, rather than the most easy, but I figure if I can do this, I can do anything. I would like to build a 2-4-0T with outside frames (4mm coupling rod throw). The target is this lovely loco here: It seems there are really only two areas that are going to complicate things mechanically: Outside Frames: Since I am happy with those outside frames being functional, I assume that I can simply treat them as if they were normal inside frames using high-level hornblocks, etc. - albeit with some rivet head detail. Is there a standard for how wide outside-frames should be? Cranks My thought for the cranks was to sweat together some fairly substantial brass sheeting (1/16"?) and then drill and file together. After separating, I would look to soldering rod through the drilled holes for fixing to the axles and as coupling rod pins (where washers would be used as retainers) For fixing the cranks into the axles, their ends would be drilled, and I would look to use loctite retainer for fixing one side, and solder for the other. Any thoughts much appreciated.

Kit vs Scratch, 1899 vs 1930, EM vs OO @Regularity I'm very flattered by your kind words of my level of ability in being able to produce finescale models. I don't want to appear too self denigrating but I am aware I have NEVER built a compensated locomotive before, nor have I scratchbuilt a loco. These are the two crucial which need to be tested before I make that decision of 1930's RTR 00 Southern vs 1899 EM-SF LCDR. I much prefer scratchbuilding wagons to kits, but we'll have to see how the locos go. On that note for 1899 EM-SF I simply can't justify the cost of RTR pre-group and it feels like buyng an 0-6-0T with inside valve gear and cylinders (i.e. none) that I then need to re-wheel or re-chassis feels like a terrible value proposition against buying something like a Lord Nelson with all the size and complexity of the locomotive ready to use. PS. You make a VERY astute point about the sunk-cost fallacy of conversion, at least once it's beyond wagons! Charford V3 As I'm slowly making my way through the Charford articles in RM, your last point is quite topical - paraphrased: better to build a layout which suits your usual number of operator(s) and may scale (albeit awkwardly) otherwise, rather than building to suit an arbitrary number which has no correlation to the number of operators you may find. It is with some pleasure I see that in the next iteration of the Charford plan (v3), John has resolved some of the comments I mentioned. It's interesting that both Berrow and Charford v3 have that twig-off-a-branch infront of the FY in East Brent and Whitsun Halt. Convergent evolution? Talking of which, @t-b-g's scenicked FY from Narrow Road is how John treats the Whitsun halt, with trains staged there whole-cloth between turns - rather than treating it as a 'real' station. Scope I think it's pretty evident that an 00 layout CAN be larger and more complex than an EMSF layout in a given amount of time (though as you've said the cost will increase). I figure for this layout, the use of the lever frame means that one person can be signalman at the same time another is engine driver - and be fully occupied.

Don't worry, while we're putting ideas forward about the grouping-era, TT gauge, and so on - please do rest assured that I'm slowly pecking away at my EM-SF Victorian SER & LCDR stuff all the time.

Bloody hell, five stations?! I thought it was 'just' a terminus station on the manner of Broad Street, I didn't realise it was that extensive!

It took me a moment to twig what I was looking at, but honestly I like it - evoking that 'system layout' format in a terminus-to-FY concept. I wonder if you're going that far, maybe it would be just as easy to have a terminus-to-terminus layout, assuming between the two of them you share enough space for all stock and locomotives? Maybe you'd need to over-provision in both, I guess - and would probably have to work one as 'live' and the other as 'shadow' for the duration of a given operating session? Could be interesting with a sliding shoji screen to mask one side of the layout as FY while the other is working :)

I have really been listening when people have suggested a single-line terminus instead of a double-track terminus. I'm still not convinced, but while I have been perusing the early RM's I've found the articles on Charford starting in RM April '55. I've come across it in passing before, but lovely to see it develop through the issues. John provides a simple track plan and later on, a working timetable. I figured this was a perfect opportunity to test out actual layout operation - please note, I'm not planning on building the layout described below! Charford V1 in EM - 14' x 18" (original 12' x 12") John Charman does make some interesting prototype-led determinations of schedule, but ultimately resorts to a sequence working in the first operational article in RM Feb'56. It consists of just four locos, two coaches and a dozen wagons. This is wonderfully simple to replicate in XtrkCAD and as such I took the liberty of doing so, and following his movement sheet. Clearly, as an armchair warrior I am not qualified to criticise, but having run the timetable I have come to the following comments which may inform my own suburban/branch terminus layout design: The kickback goods yard without a nearby runaround is a pain - each of the goods trains must go through exactly the same rigamarole of multiple reversing movements using the platform runaround to sort out the brake van, and then do exactly the same thing in the fiddle yard. Though clearly there is a nuance in goods movements which is not yet communicated by John, two goods sidings does not make for interesting shunting. I imagine a wagon routing system with Charford goods yard being used as a transfer between GWR and SR systems as well as local industries might make that more stimulating - but combined with the point above, just seems like alot of work for no reward! Due to the sequence (as opposed to time) working, there are a few occasions of identical, sequential branch passenger trains. Where in real life they may be clustered around other movements with periods of calm inbetween - as a sequence they add nothing and could well be elided in my view. There is very little interaction between trains, with the exception that at one point the branch passenger tank is on shed while the goods yard is being shunted. Clearly, expecting this from a Devonshire branch line is a little unreasonable but with everything in such plain sequencing and with reference to the first couple of points, it feels a bit rote to me. Lastly, though not mechanically neccesary there is definitely a desire for me that there should be enough space between the throat of the station and the FY to permit shunting the longest train without ended up back inside the FY, and enough space in the FY for a train to runaround (if neccesary) without entering the modelled scene. Anyway, I'm very much enthused by all the positive discussion of the space and possibilities. Clearly John was able to build a satisfying layout despite what I percieve as shortcomings, in his caravan, with hand built locomotives and rolling stock - so there's no excuse really, is there? Meaningful progress? i've finally recieved back my AG order of EM wheels, and just about to wrap up my current wagon kit before embarking on the loco build. I will of course need some track to test it on, maybe a short length of plain track with a V-crossing and check-rail setup but no actual turnout.

Thanks Mike, that's a very helpful pointer - we're all aware about the transition of locomotive liveries from say, BR Blue to Sectorisation - but easy to forget the same in humble engineering stock. Funny though - the Era system classifies black as Era 6 (60's?) and olive as Era 7 (70's) absolutely, but I guess that's the potential start date, rather than the end date.

Reading "Inside British Rail" he talks about the deplorable state of Bricklayers Arms by the end of its time, and that the descent down to it was retained as a headshunt for reversing trains from S to SE until it was determined that somewhere else could be used more efficiently - and even after that, the signals were still extant and lit up at London Bridge(?) for a long time after it was abandoned. Coming out of New Cross Gate and New Cross I was always fascinated by the vestigial lumps of the Old Kent Road loop viaducts/etc. and the tracks down to ground level, imagining (before the internet) of where they might have led.

Thanks both - what about the early 80's, just for clarity's sake?

Hi there, I would like to include some departmental stock in my N gauge collection and I'm wary of using the Era nomenclature to determine liveries. There's a bit of confusion at that point with diverging liveries for stock and locomotives. Can anyone help me sort this out? Locomotives (for Departmental trains): BR Blue (to 1988) BR General Grey (1988-1990) BR Dutch (1990+) Given the short lived nature of the BR General Grey scheme for locomotives, is there a register of what was painted in that livery? At sectorisation, is an internal-use train almost certain to be allocated a grey/dutch liveried loco? Wagons: Olive (to ???) BR Grey (????) Dutch (from 1981?) Was BR Grey ever applied to a meaningful number of departmental wagons before it was superseded by the Dutch livery? It seems the Seacows were the first dutch liveried wagons and they were introduced around 1981? Before the locomotives started being painted in grey at all... What time would we see a tipping point from olive to grey, and from grey to dutch? Thank you!

Is there any chance of joe public (i.e. Me) getting down to Littlehampton and seeing the inside of the signal box and the semaphore working before it gets erased? Thank you!

I've a boxfull of the original cast-frog turnouts - threading the bloody chairs on is enough to make me go spare, I may well just offload the lot in favour of the new ones with the integral chairs!

I think this is a key consideration - EuroN 1:160 to EuroTT 1:120 is a nice sequence, but BritishN (1:148) to BritishTT (1:120) seems faintly ridicolous

Thank you both, that's comprehensively answered my query!

Hi guys, I'm wondering what point semaphore signalling (ideally) or local colour light signalling and local control was still extant for provincial stations and secondary routes in the central section of BR(S) - I'm thinking of places like Littlehampton, Eastbourne, Uckfield, East Grinstead, etc. rather than the BML. More specifically I'm trying to figure out if I can justify a signal box, lever frame and ideally semaphores for a medium-sized station set in the Sussex weald around the late 70's to mid 1980's. I'm not fussed about 100% accuracy around dates, but if it was all cleared out by 1955 then it'll be too much of a stretch! Thank you

lol

I'm building a 1"/ft Loco and a 5/8"/ft traction engine, maybe I've overdone it with the thinking in the last few days - but right now I quite fancy spending some time in the workshop, rather than the drafting table...

Ah right, trailing from the perspective of the up line? I was thinking one-dimensionally - i.e. trailing from the up line == facing from the down line.

@Regularity you know how much I love(d) S and P4, so it pains me to say this - but what is more accurate: a 13% more accurate in track gauge, running a Class 66 with a Quad-Art, no signals, trackmat layout, etc. ? The track is obviously a key player but it can't be the only metric by which one measures a layout/model on a continuum from full-size-prototype to brio-push-along, so as per @St Enodoc I think it must be feasible. @RJS1977 - the main reason for the double track line is so I can implement realistic signalling/etc. and those opportunities are a little less so on a single-track line. I could see adopting the single track terminus as a way to squeeze more into the space, but not sure about a double single-track terminus... @Pacific231G - I understand that goods yards are typically set-back into using a trailing connection on a through station, but at a terminus they're always facing, either directly or through a separate goods lead, right? @t-b-g you make a good case for a single goods siding; after all we're not making an inglenook. I still think I'd like a coal siding adjacent the goods shed though, it "Feels" right to me. I have included it but at an angle to make the terminal end of the layout wedge shaped rather than bulbous and I think that's had a huge effect in creating a skewed parallelogram rather than a solid block. Unfortunately I DEFINITELY do not have room to have 2 locos + 4 coaches on my traverser though I'm afraid, so the turntable will have to stay and similarly having an arrival and departure road makes enough sense to me to retain. "Lindfield 1.2" To match with the low retaining wall at the rear of the layout, I imagine a gradient rising up to the right side, of the layout beyond the signalbox. A low hillside will be evident rising infront of the running lines, and into which the turntable will be cut, eventually ending in a road or occupation bridge as a view break to the FY. I had thought about shuffling the carriage siding up the throat, but that results in a very long, flat retaining wall along the back. I do need to figure out where that brick pier will end up, though!

I've looked at those changes here: My first impressions are that it certainly it looks longer and the more simple track layout offends the eye less, but now we have nowhere to lay over locomotives between turns, and shunting goods will only ever be a shuffle between the runaround and the single siding. Those feel like big sacrifices to make - but there's nothing to stop me starting with the core plan above and then adding those extra tracks if/when they become evidently required? EDIT: I'm afraid the turntable can't be behind the running tracks - there's a hot water boiler in that corner!

So, I'm a kicking myself a bit - I just lost a post :( @kitpw points out obliquely that a turntable for the terminus is almost required. Thankfully, this is an easy fix: by rotating the loco siding, the goods yard and the carriage siding positions clockwise, we end up with what may well be the perfect double-track terminus layout: The max train length of four 63' coaches is accomodated everywhere: all three platforms, the runaround, the headshunt and the carriage siding. There is also capacity for a rake of five 48' pre-group bogie coaches, or a fair few 4w/6w coaches. In addition to the reasonable passenger accomodation, there is are modest but proportional goods facilities. The layout is drawn with all 1:7 turnouts and minimum radius of 36" so would work in EM as well as 00 using hand laid, Peco or British Finescale turnouts. I have been thinking hard about the 00 conundrum and there's definitely a desire for flangeways-smaller-than-railhead that EMSF and P4 provide, but I look at Mikkel's layouts or something like Everard Junction and that fact is just lost in the mix of good modelling. Maybe I am using my desire for objective FS track standards as a bit of a crutch for other areas of my subjective artistic modelling not being quite up to par!

Layout Plan Well, the "Lindfield" layout plan above does clearly trace its lineage from Minories but with the additional runaround and goods sidings, it has become a more general mid-sized terminus layout (with the possible exception of the goods yard being atypical) and I do not think is constrained to an urban setting in the same way a pure Minories is... As a happy coincidence, it looks like the runaround by P3 is long enough for my 4x 63' coach minimum. @kitpw I had not checked out Littlehampton, (ps. love Swan Hill!) - and looking at it, it seems a fine station indeed. I'm not sure I'd change it, but LH would suggest the loco pilot road should be in the foreground with a turntable, and the engine shed road running behind the platform. This would allow tender locomotives to be turned on-layout, and a huge benefit. Finescale vs RTR I have fully embraced EM-SF for finescale, I need no convincing there - but in the interest of bringing down barriers, maybe finescale is a better idea on paper for me? Re: SECR - have you looked at the prices of those locomotives recently? Just the three of them would set me back the large part of £800, plus the cost and time of re-wheeling required for EM-SF. That's a no-no - by comparison, for the SR era and the same money I can get a nice core working set of layout stock in 00: SR Lord Nelson 4-6-0 ex-LBSCR H2 4-4-2 ex-LSWR T9 4-4-0 ex-LBSCR E4 0-6-2T 4 Main-line Maunsell corridor coaches 3 Main-line Maunsell corridor coaches + Bogie Van 3 ex-LSWR 48' Suburban bogie coaches I wouldn't use this as a sole justification, but it's a compelling argument... I would apologise to anyone following this thread and seeing my apparent indecision, but I would reiterate: I've always wanted a steam-era system layout with interesting operations, so I started from a baseline of RTR and a multi-station layout scope, investigating different scale and gauge combinations to achieve it. I reined this back when I realised that it would be too big of an undertaking. With a more limited layout size, finescale became an option - but has become clear is no less an undertaking but this time in the challenges of constructing all the required stock, rather than in layout scope. Maybe there is a goldilocks point of scope like the finescale layout, but leveraging RTR that I can find a balance between my desires for operational authenticity, low barrier of entry and visual accuracy. I guess any 00 Layout would have to be nice and high up!