Lacathedrale

Bringing it back to Minories, the post 1950's layout at Holborn Viaduct where the outermost platforms were extended as far as possible to accomodate 8-car EMUs, would block various parts of the throat as part of normal daily operation, the middle two platforms being used solely for news/parcels traffic and alternately out of commission entirely during the day.

@simon b I think the point about the longer traverser that @t-b-g was making was that you could align a traverser road that already contained an outbound train to recieve and outbound light-engine move - and then shuffle it back into the deck - the next time you come to that road you've got a train ready to pull back into the station, and the locomotive that was at the head previously is facing the right direction to back down onto a set of coaches waiting for motive power. If I take a later pre-group coach (i.e. 54') and large tender engine (i.e. 63') as an example, a 4' traverser affords me: A large tender engine + four coaches Two tank engines (one either end) + four coaches Two large tender engines + three coaches (just!) This doesn't factor in shorter 48' coaches or four/six-wheeled coaches either, which obviously simplify things a fair bit. @t-b-g I think honestly you're probably right. The small problem is that my garage currently has a car in it - which won't get moving until spring - nobody is buying silly MGB GT's in November! I guess that won't stop me from collecting the bits, though!

I can't quite fit a nice 90 degree curve AND a 5' traverser, but a 4' traverser fits the space really, really well. That blank space at the front of the orange baseboard would do well for a lever frame, wouldn't it? The 4' traverser is the limiting factor on train length, but I still think it's quite reasonable - the only train which is above capacity is four 54' coaches and two large tender engines (top and tail) There's a nice transition on that curve which I think fits really well. It does mean that the traverser cannot fit directly against it, since the transition starts on the throat board. However for the sake of £80 in baseboards and four lengths of flex track to gain a headshunt and approach for the station, I think the curve is a no-brainer. I have tried to fit a traditional FY into the bottom corner in a few different ways and I just can't see a way to make it work. As it stands the traverser can take a large 4-6-0 and four bogie coaches, or a smaller loco top-and-tail three coaches. With regard to my design decisions earlier, I think I'm pretty much settled on what we have discussed so far: Built on off-the-shelf baseboards Able to be exhibited but primarily a home layout Starting from an early Grouping era (i.e. ready-to-run) and backdated to Pre-group as I build/acquire stock Authentic and engaging operation, not just watching trains go by. Working signals, and in time, working interlocking and maybe even bells. Though not strictly related to Minories, one final thing to figure out is around the availability of simple, inexpensive pre-group stock kits and RTR. The LBSCR seem well served with Hattons and Hornby's generic coaches, the Bachmann Atlantic and E4, and the Hornby Terrier. I'm not picky about the line, Denny's "Fewer people know the GC vs GW"-approach would probably work just as well. Either way, I am very keen to take cues from @Ravenser and @KV12543 in rehabilitating older models and simple kits, rather than rushing straight to the counter with my metaphorical pocketbook....

Great Moor Street was definitely an inspiration for a 'serious' Minories for me - I didn't realise the boards were only 3'6" long - those must be some fairly short trains, I'd have thought? If I can get that working then I'd be chuffed! Leafing through 'Plans for Small Locations' I note Minories absence, but thread-darling "Maybank" makes a pseudo-appearance as Banwell, pictured top: One problem with the Banwell/Maybank plan is that gradient up to the MPD - over 4% as written! I did fiddle with the Banwell plan to approximate Holborn Viaduct (as is my wont) at bottom and it comes out fairly well, if a little track-dense compared to Minories!

I do have some criteria laid out! But I feel this should probably be in a separate thread as I am aware that I'm polluting the 'general theory of Minories' with my own mused layout plans yet again... On reflection a layout where the fiddle yard and all stock must be removed is much more of a pain than a single section which contains just a few plain curves, and a layout that must be fully dismantled a dozen times a year is probably not one which will last very long in a home setting. It looks like the garage it may be?! To bring it to a more generic 'Minories'-themed discussion rather than my particulars - it would seem that the perfect fiddle yard for a Minories is: With a least four roads With all roads accessed by both up and down lines With a usable length equal to one train length + additional loco (for @t-b-g's turnaround fix) Ideally with a separate headshunt for the station, if no such length is provided by the visible layout If no separate headshunt, then pointwork if possible to diverge the FY lines

@Zomboid I think that's a key consideration. In this case though, it is less about getting a better layout and more about having a robust one. Point taken, though! Either way, the micro-terminus variant does not fit into the spare bedroom, but a comfortable Minories to Traverser does: This actually retrofits back into the office, albeit with the traverser blocking the door: A rather more slimline variant fits into the spare room too, with just the station and traverser: This doesn't fit at all into the office. As a whole it is least favourite variant: all moves will need to go onto the traverser to complete, even plain shunts - and experience with Godstone Road showed that to be quite a pain! I have considered just starting to build the standard terminus station boards as described in the preceding diagrams - essentially unchanged in their 8' x 18" form, to slot into whatever fiddle yard arrangement works - but without a clear idea of how the rest of the layout is going to manifest I'm fearful it will end up another white elephant... Brainstorming space - now I'm thinking about my built-in garage. While now hosting my old car (soon to be sold), and a few low storage spaces - it does have the benefit of being rather more commodious with lighting and power and no bloody doorways! It can eat up Minories for breakfast but at that point, is it the right plan for the space?' Included for completeness, both traverser and junction shown - as well as the stretching of the two stations:

@Chimer I re-measured the door and (as per most standard house doors) it has a 2'6" width. It opens to 5" at the narrowest section away from the doorframe, and 9" at the hinge. As an office this door rarely needs to be closed, once or twice per week. I am fully onboard with both boards as good designs and in isolation they work perfectly, but we are really hunting for inches here in 10' x 11' - if something is just slightly out, then it all falls down - and that's only determined at the point the two boards are set up with the lift-out section in place. Hmm. I do wonder if I can broach the subject of housing the layout in the spare room, on the proviso that it's fully deconstructable and stored in my office when the room is being used for "anything" else. There are two options here - a linear space of 13' along that wall and butting up against the mirror, or an L shape slightly smaller than my office (11' x 9') but where the curved board doesn't need to wedge into a gap between the door/s and could be fully featured.

I felt somewhat compelled when I saw this at the local deli: Though clearly diverging somewhat from the Theory of General Minories, I'll take this quick moment to illustrate the advice of @Regularity and @t-b-g, where one can maximise a Micro-station infront of a Minories FY: Flipping the station to place the platform forward permits the yard to fill the otherwise unused wedge between the end of the runaround loop and the FY sidings. Extending the headshunt of the branch station to the end of the board to simulate a passing station visually seems to work reasonably well, I would imagine a level crossing gate or road bridge with steps down to platform level, etc. The elements could be tweaked a little - but in essence I think that's it. Minories set as it is in a fairly cramped baseboard is probably bounded by the trackbed footprint, so maybe nothing much more than a wall and a few low relief buildings at the rear would suffice. For scenic treatment a micro-station in this format will require a fairly vertical divider behind the goods yard - maybe a retaining wall like Thornton Heath? Part of the challenge of the Minories boards is that one has to a) maintain a reasonable radius on the 90 degree curve, while b) bringing the Minories throat towards the front of the board to clear the door swing. It does just about fit - below showing two 4' x 18" wide boards: I certainly feel a temptation to add more to the station - something outboard of P3, etc. - but I think the layout fulfills itself well without it and might spiral out of control. I am a little uneasy at the idea of designing a layout which is so directly coupled to room geometry - the lift out section is far away from being straight forward with a pseudo 90 degree corner, offset joints, etc. Along those lines and for the sake of argument I have drawn up how an 'exhibition' version of the Minories-to-Micro layout might look, with the 90 degree curve running in the opposite direction - operators inside, viewers outside. It's slightly wider at 12' but less tall at a shade over 10', with a minimum radius of 26" along the inside FY line:

@t-b-g the FY previously illustrated was fairly notional - including your suggestions it seems a fairly competent four-road Minories FY in 7', not specifically relating to my case: I had never considered the dodge you have suggested about double-ended trains, that's bloody perfect! Especially if the sequence starts with an up train departing St. Giles to set everything correctly for following moves. With that in mind, all four FY roads will take a three 54' bogie coaches rake plus two 4-6-0's. If we're talking about Mk1's then both bottom sidings can take it, but the upper two are limited to one of the two locos being tank engines. @RJS1977 I think I would definitely aim for going quite old-school on this one - DC with block sections powered by signals a-la Buckingham. I can't think of a more effective way to ensure trains obey the signals! There is indeed a narrow space behind the door but at 5" wide an inaccessible if the door is blocked open, I'm not sure how useful it would be?

@Pacific231G I have in my hand the two articles of Model Railway Constructor that feature Acheaux, I was initially turned on to it by @Dr Gerbil-Fritters way back when. Among many other diversions I also spent some time trying to see if I could get SNCF H0 to work, but with decrepit Hornby Achaux or brand new 400 euro models being the only options it was dropped like a bad habit. German H0 on the other hand.... As an aside I can't figure any way for the layout to fit along the other two walls without blocking the door and losing the branch, whatever it would end up being. One potential addition could be a 'straight' bridge piece to connect St. Giles to Slipcote Grange - so it could be set up in a straight line in the dining room or even (gasp) exhibited...

Dear all, nothing pleases me more than batting around layout plans and ideas, so unless someone tells me to stop I'd love to continue it here. Thank you all for the continued advice and interesting thoughts. @john new - the branch in this case already has access to all platforms, those on the left are a dock and loco pilot siding, but I see what you mean, like this? Though it saves a little on space I'm not sure I like it, I'll need to mull it over. @Harlequin - I did actually sketch out a modular minories in roughly the same space in 2mm, and funnily enough the Berrow branch's twig is alot like CJF's modular minories goods depot. We've already spoken about Ewer St. and how that works as a cramped city goods depot - particularly the conversation about perishables, apparently it also had quite a whiff. Slipcote is a local cheese, so that'll do for the twig in whatever form, and St. Giles is local enough for the terminus. Here's P3 with an added runaround and spur around to Slipcote Lane Goods: I'm not sure I want to make the lift-out section any more precarious than it already is by adding pointwork there, though. Though it certainly is more logically cohesive I am also not 100% sold on the idea that operational/visual connection is more important than having two discreet locations given the operations-focused nature of the endeavour. By including another station (as trite as it is) we can have passenger services on the two lines interact in a loosely coupled architecture. If the line is a goods-only depot it is synchronous with the rest of the layout. Though I imagine the Slipcote branch would only justify a regular one or two-coach service, peak-time through coaches and covered wagons can be prototypically moved from the mainline onto the branch platform/s and vice versa. Slipcote Grange could even justify a 'real' goods train - particularly with a nearby gasworks or ... cheese dairy. I think I'm aligned to @t-b-g's thinking on this one - but then I am superbly jealous of Mansfield Road so may not be the best judge on that count. @Keith Addenbrooke in one hand, an operational scheme which pits two operators against each other in friendly competition (images of ringing bells to call attention to pending inbound trains) I think would be very engaging as long as it was fun, but the metaphor of 'ping-pong' and 'batting between' is probably apt for a design where there are only two destinations that are facing off against each other over a short length of track. I had (and do) consider N for this, but frankly - I'm lazy. Every time I have embarked on a project which requires significant upfront effort to get anything going then it just stalls out completely before it has a chance to gain any kind of inertia. Hence my resolution to go with 00 for the range of stock available, and use Peco bullhead to get the bloody track laid before I waste another decade talking about it!

I'd not seen Berrow but was very much inspired by Charford - even to the point of looking at Malachite. A single line branch coming off just before the throat would provide space for a Berrow-style Micro-terminus of sorts, although it does stink to high heaven of a ripe Stilton! In some ways the 90 degree curved section is something of a blessing as it enforces a separation between the main layout elements. While I'm not sure I'm convinced by a terminus-to-FY layout for a home setting, the addition of the scenic section infront of the fiddle area here gives us two 'real' destinations as well as a catch-all FY. I imagine in this arrangement that if there were more than one operator, one would be responsible for Stilton station - probably some kind of shunting puzzle variant - and acting as signalman for the FY. For the Mainline station itself (Cheddar?), the additional siding off the throat (achieved due to the neccesary rotation of the Minories plan to bring the exit forward to clear the doorway) as a dock platform will be very helpful - newpapers, perishables or through-coaches for the branch line both inbound and outband can be added and removed as neccesary, as well as a place to store coaches that would be used to bolster existing sets. This is a much more collaborative than combatative layout operation. Your comment re: Coarse 0 has me starstruck - it was with much regret I loosed my SR Olive stock back to the world....

I've been slowly building up stock (and motivation) for Katharine Street, a suburban terminus in N scale for some time, but the child in me is craving something more 'system'-like and stylised to operate on. Not quite Coarse O-gauge levels, but where I'm OK to stomach compromised train and track lengths, potentially with improbable loco combinations (within reason!) and ready-to-plonk components. Way back on Page 43 I found pictures of @t-b-g's Mansfield Road as well as @Harlequin's Seironim - and it got me thinking... In addition to Katharine Street, I have attempted two not-Minories in 4mm/ft. The first was a suburban branch terminus called Godstone Road. It got to the point of painted baseboards, platforms and a backscene. However, half the throat pointwork was 'assumed' on the other side of the scenic break - and every single shunt move had to occur with train moving 'off scene' onto the traverser. To compound the awkwardness of this, the double track of the layout was not matched to the track spacing of the traverser and actually physically going to the traverser required vaulting a horizontal roofing beam. I tried again with a different prototype - an SECR plan based on Holborn Viaduct. The throat was based on Buckingham GCR's throat (fairly simplifed!) and if it were entirely hand laid, it would have been fine. However, I tried to combine hand laying with Peco track geometry retrospectively - and it was a disaster, though the Fiddle Yard was complete, the rest was sold off. <no pictures of this one, didn't last long enough!> I think then, it's time to revisit an actual Minories plan and consider it as close to verbatim as is feasible. This is the space I have available: I had initially considered a layout along one wall, but I am essentially limited to 8' total length along either wall due to the location of the door - hardly enough for a layout in N let alone 00! I know I can re-hang the door, remove it, etc. but I want the layout to be harmonious with my space, not completely dominating it. So, though it feels a little strange, I think the most practical solution is for a two-board layout which spans the door with a removable curve or board: Now, to bring this back - I have been able to fit a Minories vs. Seironim plan in this space: This can fit a pacific and three Mk1's to any of the platforms, but I would be modelling this in the pre-group era so four and six wheeled coaches and small locomotives would be the order of the day. Using large radius Peco Bullhead turnouts, one station could be built to completion while the other was bare boards, etc. - one layout could behave as a fiddle yard for the other, or otherwise with two operators as a game of train 'pong'. As a side-note it is just about possible to extend the loco spur on Seironim around as an inner loop to connect up to an engine facility to allow trains to be turned in both stations. However, I can't help but wonder if there is a better solution.Bear in mind that the mainline might be limited to a flat surface with a retaining wall or embankment behind! I'm not interested particularly in exhibiting the layout, but will be built to be technically portable. I am leaning towards a fiddleyard-less design, with another scenic section of some variety instead, even as mundane as an engine servicing facility and carriage sheds. I am hoping for 'storage' of at least three trains [worth of stock] beyond the borders of Minories. - the essential question is: If you had 4' of plain double-track mainline and 6' of space for a FY/other destination beyond the original 7' Minories board - what would you do with it?

Looking back onto the last page, love all these shots.

I can't imagine we'd see the Gatwick Express stopping at Katharine St - but I didn't realise there was a 'Railair' brand that predated it on that route: https://twitter.com/_doublearrow/status/1462568384357449732/photo/1

Ah yes, the Sunny South Special or some such - 47 hauled?

Well, that is something I did NOT know - but it makes perfect sense. Can you sleuth the junction photograph? Wrong line running but presumably more of the same?

Sorry @Rivercider, for the last few days I have been deep in the wasteland of 19th century signalling diagrams and I haven't put a huge amount of thought into the Kenny Belle service. What are the through trains? I wonder if in my hypothesised extension of the service, those would be Willesden trains?

Hi NickC, Nick Holliday in the LBSCR group has confirmed BoT regulations at the time state the most distant turnout from a box was 180yds, and the headshunts were 220yds distant from the cabin - so I think it's fair to say you're right on the money. I have attempted to colourise this other photograph, famously showing a Webb 2-4-2 pulling an LNWR train out of Central Croydon (i.e. somewhere between 1886-1890). The green line shows the two running lines, and a siding obscured by the train. You can see EC South at the end of the line, and the plain grey horizontal band which is the retaining wall on the main line. The trees at the end of the embankment between the LNWR loco and the retaining wall are visible in the Junction photo. The orange line is the sand pit line. In this photograph we can clearly see four signal posts. There are only three visible in the 1896 town planning map: But do you know what else is missing from that 1896 map? The main line signalbox of East Croydon South. If the station was out of use by 1890 and razed according to the 1896 town map, and that same map shows that the signal box visible in both photographs isn't yet built - then the only explanation is that both photographs date from after the station was razed, and the approaches must have been used for empty stock storage. Dating the photographs to post-1897 dovetails them nicely with the 1920's signal box diagrams for the EC South and EC Central boxes: I think this is the blue highlighted signal I think this is the purple highlighted signal/s. The offset signal in the colourised photograph to the left of the blue, is visible in the 'Junction photograph' on the up local, where a Terrier is pulling a load bunker first towards East Croydon.

Thank you grahame - a nice, long repetitive office block will be far easier to build than dozens of townhouses and suitable for my core period of 1977-87 as well as the transition era. As a bus route Katharine St. features a good deal on Flickr so I think detail-wise I'll be OK apart from the sunken lower ground level - no space for modelling that! NickC, your explanation does make sense - the release crossovers would have been the most distant points from the signal box by a long shot. I assume that in that case, releasing the bolts from the signalbox would be feasible over the distance, whereas throwing the turnouts wouldn't? Another fun snag in the operational complexity of the layout Thank you for the tip on Signal 4. Speaking of signals, the LBSCR group on groups.io has turned up a photograph of the later Signal box in situ. You can clearly see on the left side two tracks - one behind the cricket screen and one just infront of the pile of detritus. The front line is heading to the LBSCR sand pit, the rear are the running lines towards Fairfield Jct. I am supposing that the right hand side of the photograph shows the workshops south of the line being constructed. A Town Planning map of 1895 shows the arrangement, including some steps down from Park Lane previously undiscovered: https://maps.nls.uk/view/229914255. The next OS map survey of 1914 shows this replaced by the LBSCR PW "Fairfield Yard". The box has turned out to be (thanks to the help of many people in the group) an LBSCR Type 2a, identical to that at Bedhampton. Referring to Pryor's Southern Signals, there is a scale drawing of it there: Plumpton has an extant Type 2b box (same sans valance) so there may be opportunity for a day trip there. One thing that is a little confusing is the location of the signals 1 and 2+3+4 shown in the 1885 "reopening" diagrams linked above. This photograph, presumably taken between 1885 and 1890 due to the presence of the passenger train, shows a gantry with three signals (well, three black dots on a gantry that I assume are semaphore arms) which seem to correlate: However, if this is signal 2+3+4, where is Signal 1? Is that further towards New Croydon? The signals and track arrangement here match perfectly the 1895-surveyed OS map at the junction - including the signal post and the workshops behind the branch train: https://maps.nls.uk/view/229914246 - and there is just no space for it! Intriguing!

Further scrutiny of Natalie's diagram shows the legend 'Bolt locks by rod' and the squiggly 's' over the tie bars of both crossovers - which presumably confirms that although the points were operated locally, they were unlocked from the box. I'm an amateur when it comes to signalling, but this does seem a little strange. Maybe the shunt release for all four turnouts was provided by a single rod - which in the days of cheap labour may have been more cost effective to have one of the station staff handle the runarounds. I would guess that the release rod lever would interlock with the throat pointwork (and thus signals at that end) to preclude a train entering a platform while the runaround was in use, and to prevent the locomotive after having run around from being able to enter the running lines without the buffer end of the runaround being re-set. Maybe this is why the shunt signals weren't added? It was all done with hand signals while the runarounds were locked off from the running lines during the process? Fascinating to think about, but with 'the juice' being laid on the platform roads I find it hard to believe these would have persisted, so unless someone tells me I am fundamentally wrong, I will model them as interlocked and concentrated in the signal box. After all, if they had 40 levers they certainly had the capacity! This is my rough sketch for the Signalbox with the turnouts and signals numbered in no realistic order, but for the purposes of illustration should suffice: 1. Outer Home, slotted with New Croydon 2 & 3. Platform Home 4. Starter, slotted with New Croydon - limit of shunt? 5 & 6. Platform Starters 10 & 11. Red shunt signal from Down/Up main 12. Red shunt signal from Sandpit/Yard 13, 14, 15 & 16. Red shunt signal from Platform roads + runarounds 17 & 18. Yellow shunt signals from Platform roads into runaround 20-27. The points themselves 30, 31 and 32 - Facing point Locks I'll work out the interlocking in due course. I wonder however, if this station would have been a recipient of the Sykes Lock & Block with treadles a la Caterham? All very rich food for thought - particularly 'model railway'-like occupancy detection circuits used prototypically to unlock signals. In the Kew diagram from 1885, the turnout I have marked 22 was not part of the interlocking scheme, but 21 was. Given its clear use as a catch point I find that odd, and presumably would have been included in the signal box interlocking? I wonder if the signals would have been updated to SR or BR types before conversion to colour light? Regarding the modelling of these - I think I'd like to experiment with semaphore signalling only because I think it's a little more interesting - but both this layout and my other baby (Holborn Viaduct) were likely early recipients of colour lights. For colour light the only real changes are the normal signals: 1 and 4 are simple three aspect lights, 2 and 3 converge into a single three aspect with a feather to indcate access over the crossover into P1, and 5 & 13, 6 &16 become three aspect lights with position light shunt signals underneath. Absolute Aspects as noted previously can supply them, but at £230 it's not exactly affordable. Time will tell. EDIT: another quesiton - would 4 in 20th century parlance been demoted from an Starter to Distant leading to the home for East Croydon at Fairfield Jct. ? I make it about 300 yards from where that would have been located to the junction, and the platforms already have starters themselves.

Doing a bit more musing on this while convalescing, and a few things have really struck with me: Given my interest in signalling, interlocking, etc. - including the approach board with the outer home, home, signal box, shunt signals and branch is more important to me than I had previously thought. As a corrolary of this, I think I am going to Rule #1 the use of semaphore signals if I can build a working gantry semaphore. Secondly, modelling the 1885 layout makes more sense- not only do I have a full signalling diagram, but the track plan is more unique and should be more interesting operationally. The following images were provided by @Natalie for which I am ever grateful and show the signalling and track arrangement - please note they are flipped north-south, the signalbox is north of the running lines and the curved platform is south. The only nod towards practicality I'm willing to take at this point is to stagger the double scissors into a normal crossover, unless FiNetrax comes out with one before I get to that point (ha!). The white signal arm on the home gantry in the above diagram denotes that it applies to the up line, rather than the down line which would be implied by the location of the post. The fact it is diagonal shows it is slotted with the New Croydon box. The outer home at the start of the branch is also slotted, but I think in reverse - controlled by New Croydon and slotted with the Central Croydon box. The writing 'Passenger Lines colored (!) blue, all points and signals are concentrated and interlocked' seems to clash with the the 1880's platform view shown below - there are clearly a pair of two lever ground frames in line with the tie bar of the points. One can make out rodding perpendicular to the track and then running adjacent P1, but these may simply reach to the other end of the crossover. Additionally there are a pair of shunt signals depicted at the buffer end on the diagram, coloured white (or rather not red) which are not extant in this photo: The station does look rather clean and the stacks of hoardings on the right might indicate this photograph was taken before the 1885 inspection by Gen. Hutchinson who notes: So maybe they were added after the above inspection to bring the station in line with the requirements? Maybe the shunt signals were notional and deemed superfluous? Either way I would imagine that the passenger lines must have been interlocked with the signal box with a shunt release lever for each runaround. I find it hard to believe they'd go to all that trouble and then still require a poor sod to jump onto the track bed and crank the actual point over...

One of the requirements for me for this layout was operational signalling and interlocking and I think that will be particularly relevant to retain operational intensity on what is a relatively simple track plan. Though for now my main focus is '77-'87, I've realised that KS can represent many periods from 1885 onward with very few changes other than a few of the buildings and signs. If we firstly discount the interesting but overly ambitious pre-group and LBSCR overhead electric periods, we actually only have one choice - whether that signalling should be LBSCR semaphore (1930-1985ish), or BR colour light (1955+). There are arguments for semaphore usage post-1955, but given the generally prototypical approach we're taking elsewhere it might be a stretch. Thankfully, whatever I choose I've not got much to manage initially - just two platform starters with position lights and a few ground signals. If I ever build the Fair field extension, it will require a couple more ground signals. and a three aspect signal with a theatre indicator (or maybe a feather) - and happily, Absolute Aspects can supply all of these bar ground signals, which I think simple 3D prints with bi-colour LEDs should suffice for: Absolute Aspects Colour Light Signal (Facebook.com) As a side note, the signal cabin would have been either a Saxby Farmer 1b in 1868-71 on the station side of Park Lane, or 2a from 1885 until at least 1895 (where it was used as a ground frame) on the other side of Park Lane in Fair field. The last 1b box in the country is actually sited at a museum not too far from me, so I think i'll model that - albeit probably boarded up or burnt out! S&F Type 1 Signal Box at Billingshurst, now at Amberley Museum A Type 2 signal box was essentially the same, but would more likely be built with a brick base at a standard 8' above rail level (instead of 'for best visibility') and have one more pane vertically in the windows and much more like a 'normal' signal box.

They look fantastic, and I'm 99% sure I'll go that way - but propriety does mandate that I at least make a cursory enquiry about semaphores. How hard are they to build (I'm assuming from kits) and to articulate? I'm building a small layout, with ust two platform starters (and subsiduary shunt arms) and four ground signals. There's an obvious extension in future to model the remainder of the station throat which would include a double sided bracket (P1/2 home signals on one way, and a slotted up starter on the other). Neither of these types seem particularly straight forward, but I have no frame of reference to know if they're going to be more or less complex than say, a wagon chassis - does anyone have any thoughts?

I've read in the 'what if the Pilot Scheme was allowed to Run' thread in the discussion forum, and would just like to confirm the reasoning why so many people have written there that the 44/45/46's were essentially obsolete in favour of the 47. Is it purely a cost/power comparison, or is there something else to it? I'm reminded of the wonderful video on YT about the Peaks: