Lacathedrale

Hi Tony, I'm going to have a cup of tea and scrutinise that wiring diagram, thank you! My first question upon looking is 2 - does that imply the platform is always live for Grandborough? Is that just a factor of it being single pole, two throw switches in the lever frame? Or does the Grandborough controller have some other switching involved? (I would have thought this would be repeated on all platforms, and having all of them live to GJ simultaneously sounds like a recipe for disaster). My second question is, is the plunger shown between 43 and 44 used to give power to the A section to allow a loco to move from the middle to the end of the platform, and 40 is used to get it from the buffer stops to the middle of the platform? My third question is, are you using common return wiring, or switching both rails? I can only really seem to find discussions of angry american basement-empire builders talking about it... William

Hi there! So the lever frame microswitches are instead switching relays to set multiple feeds - rather than literally making and breaking those feeds themselves? I can understand that from a neatness perspective, but I'm still not much wiser on how it might look in practise - thank you either way, William

Hi all, I am working on a steam-era terminus layout. I want to control the signals and points with a Scale4Society lever frame. The lever frame includes the provision of a single micro switch per lever. I'm thinking of using MTB MP-1 point motors, which route power from the relevant turnout stock rails to the frog (rather than from their own power source). This should be fairly straight forward to implement (before I get into interlocking ) Over time I would like use signal levers to a) energise sections and b) have them controlled by the relevant controller (either layout or fiddle-yard). The ability to do this has a bearing on whether I go with DC (as my preference) or have to switch to DCC. In the real layout there are 18 levers and 16 power sections and I have already mapped out which track sections each signal lever will need to energise, and which controller that will need to go to - but I was hoping that someone with a bit more knowledge of electronics might be able to sanity check on how an example might look physically if that's OK? Here's an example diagram: There are only four signals (red numbers) and five sections (letters) in this one, so if I pull off: 1, I want to route A, X and C to the FY controller 2, I want to route B, X, C to the FY controller 3, I want to D, X, A to the layout controller 4, I want to route D, X, B to the layout controller Electronically, how would this look? I'm sure it's quite simple but I just don't have the knowledge! Thank you so much!

That P3 crossover gave me no end of headaches trying to work it out on Templot @Richard Jones - not to mention the pair of overlaid single slips just below the ash pit on the throat. A photograph from around 1880 shows that this line was either never implemented or removed shortly after. I have highlighted in red where it would have been -

@Stationmaster I particularly wanted to permit shunting on the down main, so I should revert 98 to an Advanced Starter on lever 10? I want to ensure that V is under control of the next box, and W is under the control of this box. The coloured sections and letters are DC blocks, rather than signal blocks - no correlation to interlocking at all except for my own reference (i.e. pulling signal 1 energises DC sections E,R,T,W) - sorry for the confusion! Paul, this line here is just wonderful. I wish I had the ability to juggle the indirect locking! Can I confirm that 21 Locks: 14 Both ways, and with 14N, locks 15 Both ways, and with 14N and 15N, locks 11 Both ways, and with 14R, locks 11N, 12N and 13 Both ways

Thanks Mr. Gibbons - re-gauging my RTR coaches should not be a problem hopefully, either with replacement axles or simply pushing out the existing wheels if there's clearance. Locomotives are a bit more of a pain but I believe the layout scope of two and three-coupled inside-cylinder, inside-valve gear locomotives should be fairly straight forward. For example, the Hornby H-class is just a matter of pulling out the wheels by hand on the axles. Not all are that straight forward, of course... I'm quite aware of British Finescale having spoken to Wayne a few times and bought some of his FiNescale N-gauge track - but the way I see it now is that relieved of the need to hand lay all my track, I can spend some of that effort in the re-wheeling process Thank you!

Hi Becasse, I'm sorry - the prototype has changed to ex-LCDR SE&CR, hence the comment about ringed shunt signals - sorry!

This document dated 1881 suggests that it would be unlikely for an LSWR loco to be at HV after that date:

I guess for both wheel pulling and punching you're removing the axles from the loco? I have a set of hardened pin punches, a teensy tiny gear puller and a set of rather more agricultural ones - I'll give them all a bash - but probably on a cheap donor loco rather than the SECR D I've managed to pry open the wallet for...

Paul, I think I just fundamentally don't understand how are drawing your conclusions I've read alot of books about interlocking but it just doesn't seem to settle. I have tried about four times now to write this down and it just gets me more and more in circles. Surely 12 would be released by 11, rather than locking it normally? Or have I got my terms mixed up - I assume 'normal' is the black route on the diagram. Assuming that is the case, then I figure the signal interlocking is as follows: 1 is released by 11 and locks 5, 9, 14, 15 2 locks 6, 9, 14, 15 3 is released by 13, 14, and locks 7, 9, 12 4 is released by 14 and locks 8, 9, 12, 13 Shunt signals as above 22 is released by 11, 12 and locks 14 23 is released by 13, and locks 12, 14 24 locks 12, 13, 14 Calling on signals as above

We spoke about LSWR services terminating at Ludgate Hill after their circuitous journey, but a pre-1891 picture has surfaced of Holborn Viaduct (which I have enclosed a snippet) which shows LSWR 206, a Class 0298 Beattie Well Tank sitting in Platform 1: In Platform 2 is Onyx, a rebuilt tender locomotive of the Ruby-class of 1861! Sounds amazing, but less than 30 years old in this photo...

Yes that's right - the next signalbox on the prototype is very close - about two hundred yards if I remember rightly! I've coloured and lettered the track to aid in block switching but that's not all that relevant for this discussion except to highlight the following: W - within block for this box V - within block for adjacent box 25 - Distant signal for this box 97 - Distant signal for adjacent box (essentially fixed) 98 - Home signal for adjacent box (controlling access to FY) 99 - Starter signal for adjacent box (controlling access from FY) I tried to write up a locking table but I feel just all kinds of stupid whenever I try, so I think I'm going to eschew physical interlocking on the related layout for now...

As I look at it, I wonder if 25 should be an outer home instead of a distant? or a section signal for the proceeding box with a slotted distant?

I have put together a notional signalling plan for the layout, it seems to make sense to me - can I ask for a sanity check from those in the know? 1-4 - Platform Starters 5-8 - Platform Shunt signals 9 - Ground signal for Loco pocket 10 - Advanced Starter 11-15 Throat points (with 11 and 14 controlling crossovers) 16 - Trap for Loco pocket 21 - Shunt signal for moves from down main to platforms/pocket 18-20 - Calling on signals 22-24 - Platform homes 25 - Distant A few notes: Platform shunt signals are a signature of the prototype I'm modelling, despite the extravagance P4 is departure only, so it does not factor on the home gantry I am deliberately avoiding the inclusion of facing point locks for simplicity's sake - but if I were to include them, it looks like only half of crossover 11, and turnouts 12 and 13 would require them? The distant on the up main is non-functional, the double-track leading directly to a fiddle yard with no further block sections. If this is OK, I will start drafting a locking table.

Further to the conversation about Minories+1, the two plans are summarised here. They occupy the same space, with the same number of turnouts- the only real distinction being that dock/platform swap. Plan A The first image, with three platforms and the dock makes me think of a suburban, rather than urban terminus, vis Greenwich Park: The asymmetry of the platforms and the discrete dock sidiing I think would fit well in this context - the placement of the railway in a cutting backed by town houses, with both a signal box and road over bridge make scenic treatment simple and straight forward. The suburban nature however, makes interesting operation more challenging - one might consider nearby race-day traffic, etc. but as a branch terminus it's unlikely to get the variety of motive power an urban setting would provide. Greenwich Park, Bromley North and Hayes are all similar in appointment and show precious little variation in operation or stock. Plan B In this plan the dock is extended to form part of a platform. @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: The original station had distinct arrivals (P4, bottom) and departures (P1, top) platforms. The shorter platform siding (P3) had 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 believe will make up for the unique look of the dock siding. As an aside, assuming I proceed with Plan B - I am planning on buildng the station on the surface of standard laser-cut baseboards, the approach curve will drop down by 100mm with an offset baseboard connector to allow me to build up a viaduct. This means that in order to represent the station on a viaduct too, I will need to cut into the surface of the station baseboard and create a false floor inside to drop 'ground level'. There are transverse stiffeners that I will need to avoid, but my thoughts are that I can build buildings to slot over these areas, leaving alleys and yards below baseboard level. Does this sound like insanity? Plan B with baseboard cutouts The area around the lever frame would be left as-is, painted a matt dark grey/etc.

I have decided to throw my lot in with EM for now - maybe P4 can come by as a second (third?) layout in future - but the idea that I can buy the track RTP from the EMGS and re-gauge the various coaches or swap out the wheels is a real winner. I appreciate there will be a learning curve for locomotives, but given that I only have a need for half a dozen at maximum, none of which will have outside cylinders or valve gear, I think it should be manageable. Thank you all for the help and advice.

Thank you - I've sent them both an email and will report back. Cheers!

Hi all, I'm looking at (re)buying an SECR H-class and/or P-class and I notice that the SECR lined green versions are out of stock everywhere but there are copious amounts of the BR lined black and ROD liveried versions. I'm OK with an airbrush and I don't mind giving repainting a bash, but I can't seem to find any SECR-specific lining transfers anywhere. Do these exist? I see that Fox Transfers do loco and company insignia and lining strips, and HMRS do individual lining strips of green, yellow and red but I'd rather not go down that route if there are alternatives. Cheers!

The first axiom for this layout when it was proposed in the Theory of General Minories thread, was one of confined scope that would be achievable in a reasonable amount of time and still provide a degree of operational satisfaction. Track and the Permanent Way in general fascinates me. I wonder if it is because so many of my layouts have never got past the track planning and laying phase that I've unconciously gravitated towards gleaning as much enjoyment as possible from that aspect of model railways? Either way - I'm often straight down into the weeds of correct timber spacing, panel length, precise configuration - as can be seen by this entry here . As a result of that I did flirt with P4 and built a functioning turnout without too much trouble - but I came to realise that while the work of hand-laying the track wasn't particularly onerous, the re-chassis'ing as well as re-wheeling of most commercially available stock would be a large undertaking. I'm not aiming for a fully RTR layout, but part of the first axiom was to ensure my layout is achievable in a reasonable amount of time, so leveraging those offerings where feasible is a key consideration. RP25 vs P4 wheels - different, but not as much as I'd thought.. After pondering this for a while, I resigned myself to 00 - until I realised that Peco Bullhead turnouts are permanently out of stock everywhere. I then thought about hand-laying 00-SF, but the only benefit of this over hand laying EM is locos wouldn't have to be re-wheeled. While looking on the EMGS website, I saw they hold stock and sell some nice looking EM gauge B6 turnouts. Infact, I could get all of the track required for the layout for just over £300. By using these RTP turnouts and track, I would have the benefit of a much more accurate track gauge and the REQUIREMENT to hand-lay track is obviated. The layout was designed by CJF with 'standard' turnout geometry in mind, so my reservations about using proprietary turnouts is mollified to a degree. Ultimately - 80% of the looks of P4 for 20% of the effort, being able to leverage RTR offerings without re-chassis'ing them. Most importantly - I would be able to move beyond the track laying stage of layout construction, to other aspects: electrics, scenics, signalling, rolling stock construction, etc. Alea iacta est

Thanks Martin, I didn't know about those - I've got a duplicate template so I'm right that far - but didn't see them. I'm printing with a black and white printer so I wonder it's merged in with the tie colour. You're hte man in the know about these things - are the EM and 00-SF gauge dimensions I noted above correct please?

Well @Jeff Smith I do have a P4 turnout and a Ratio Iron Mink running through it without a problem, but I have neither the patience of Job nor the years of Methuselah to re-chassis in addition to re-wheeling stock for my forthcoming layout. I'm pleased with the appearance and it was enjoyable to build - but part of my layout journey (as opposed to track or locomotive-building) is leveraging RTR where feasible, and there is just no way I'm going to spend £hundreds on an RTR loco and then throw most of it away to convert it to P4. It's becoming clear that EM's ability to use 00 gauge wheels is as @PMP has mentioned, a 'brucie bonus' rather than a given - which is quite reasonable.

The dock did strike me as a catalyst for interesting operations and I didn't fully consider how its transmutation to a platform would have a negative effect - thank you! Part of the reason for me calling off the 'full HV' plan was that there were two extra platforms that added nothing operationally but would have increased both the length and width of the layout exponentially. @scottystitch you're quite right that Moorgate had one platform per company before it was rebuilt - but I think Tony does make a very good point.

I've still yet to make a decision between 00 with 00-SF turnouts, or EM - so I decided to split the difference and model in 17.2mm gauge which I am calling 00-SF+1 or EM-1 depending on your preference: Home made 17.2mm roller gauges Just kidding - my workshop is fully imperial, so I quickly sketched up the design in QCAD and converted to thou - so I didn't notice until I got back in and compared with a metric ruler that I had forgotten to subtract the flangeway thicknesses from the inside of the gauge. Thankfully, nothing is loctited yet so it's a simple matter of replacing or turning down the barrel. I feel like a total imbecile but can someone tell me what those measurements should be, for a check-rail gauge and a standard roller gauge? Roller gauge barrel length - 14.2mm in 00-SF, 16.2mm in EM Check gauge barrel length - 15.2mm in 00-SF, 17.2mm in EM Is that correct?

Much is made of the ballasting of running lines in the pre-group period: I understand that the general acceptance is that ballasting to the rails fell out of favour in 1890 was typically replaced with standard ballasting methods during track renewals. But what was going on at the termini? 1880's-1890's This shot of St Pancras dated 1886: https://www.francisfrith.com/london/london-st-pancras-station-c1886_l130068 show the ballast over the sleepers, as does this 1880-1890 picture of Charing Cross: A similar undated shot of the Brighton wing of Victoria also shows the same ballast over sleepers - not even any gaps to inspect sleepers! Whatever the loco with the Willesden destination board is, it looks about half the size of a Terrier some I'm going to assume this is a very early shot - maybe pre 1880's? Euston Station in another undated view but presumably later shows complete over-ballasting: https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/antique-photograph-of-london-euston-station-gm872849890-243787553 This shot in 1895 of the throat of Charing Cross seems to show the outline of turnout timbers quite well: https://thetransportlibrary.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=168210 - but it's not clear since that part of the station is above a road, so it may be deliberately not ballasted to reduce weight 1900's+ By 1905 Lewisham (the major junction station on the SER lines, right?) still has groomed ballast over the sleepers: https://thetransportlibrary.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=168198&search=Lens+of+Sutton+Association+SECR+Stations+part+1&page=2 - By 1910 though it's more rare, examples such as Faversham still show ballast over the sleepers: https://thetransportlibrary.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=168180&search=Lens+of+Sutton+Association+SECR+Stations+part+1&page=3 Questions Should ballast be over the sleepers for a 1900-1905 based layout? Is there a distinction of ballast height depending on whether the railway is ontop of a) solid earth, b) arches/vaults or c) girders? Colour-wise should I expect the platform roads to be filthy (i.e. soot, ash, oil) throughout, or just the ends where the locos were?

Just a quick post of a small tweak to my interpretation of a Pre-Group Minories: to catch up from the original design: the loco spur has sprouted a dock platform, and now that dock platform has grown into a departure-only road as an carry-over from an earlier railway period: Functionally the same, but two pairs of running lines looks quite impressive to me and can host an overall roof with a central support