Lacathedrale

Funnily enough, one of my first templot plans was making an S7 version of that design - https://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-101-september-2010/ I think the crux of this design (and a number of Minories variations that I've sketched out since then) is that the double slip becomes a bottleneck - arrivals and departures block each other all over the place. That said, while it may be an issue for multiple operators, it's unlikely to be a deciding factor in a lone operator environment as most things would presumably be one move at a time, by sequence.

Thanks, they are going around a 34" radius curve. I found them fairly tough to push around. Maybe the spoons are arranged for depressed 3-rail?

This is the way to do it, right? Unfortunately my Schools had the bolt on the crosshead either break or ping off so is yet again, out of commision - but above shows the King Arthuer and the rake of four LBSCR coaches that the Terrier absolutely cannot shift

I'm convinced! Thank you all,

Lovely stuff @Spam Can Man - you've totally nailed the look, there! As for Greenwich Park, I'm aware of model that exists with a 'what if' goods yard attachment, and assuming it had been a little busier. My mind is currently on building an 1890's urban terminus station but the sheer amount of rolling stock required is quite putting off...

Wonderful stuff - how are these locomotives powered? There's so much daylight under the footplates!

Very nice - presumably the floor/solebar/sides and ends are one piece, the roof another (brass?) and a slot-in chassis underneath?

That's the site I used to determine the chassis to buy @Simon D. - thank you for the link anyway!

Does anyone have examples of 3D printed coaches? i'm wondering if it may be an expedient way to build up a stock of pre-group vehicles but I have heard concerns (as mentioned above re: minimum wall thickness) around look of things like glazing, and so any material evidence would be greatly appreciate.

@37Oban and @TJ52 - thank you for your replies. It does seem that this decision is now based entirely on my wants, rather than any decision I can outsource to 'reality' ! 1962 seems to be the golden year for variety if i want to include steam: Structurally, everything is backwards compatible with the grouping and nationalisation-eras including the station and signals Stock wise we have all the major EMU suburban units available for use - 4 SUB (Pre-Group, 'Sheba's, and 'Mary's), 4 EPB, 4 CEP, and the MLVs in BR(S) green with and without warning panels. Steam wise, the last of the C-classes were withdrawn in this year so would definitely feature on the layout as well as BR standards. For diesels, we have the Class 33's and the first batch of 73's in overall green. I could smudge the edges and get some Class 24's also. However, I am really starting to wonder if the token inclusion of a single steam loco justifies the early BR green period compared to the BR blue era (which I can just about remember myself, albeit the tail end). For any period up until 1973 the only salient differences on the layout would be: The widened lines at the rear of the layout are lifted and track overgrown, and the overall roof is removed in favour of individual canopies Stock wise, painting in BR blue and blue/grey Everything is just a little bit shabbier. Let's see how my 4Sub build gets on before we make any rash decisions - either way I think building the layout plan to the post 1925 configuration makes the most sense and will be working on that assumption. Would the rail at HV have been bullhead by the post-war era? Maybe the outer platforms when the third rail was laid?

In LCDR guise the layout would be at the apex of operational complexity including the Catford Loop, Greenwich Park branch, Crystal Palace HL branch as well as workmen's trains, boat trains and the overloaded kent coast expresses. As @justin1985 has pointed out however, the demands of the stock will certainly outstrip my short-term abilities, so something which leverages RTR may be a better choice (or conversely, to reduce the scope of the plan). Modelling 1925-1939 I think having done some head scratching and released that modelling the SR period is not actually all that bad - I lose the workmens trains, the boat trains and half of the inner suburban movements - but these were exactly the ones I was cutting down on from the LCDR WTT. Essentially this period is typified by the early 3 and 4Sub EMUs, with some commuter services and longer distance passenger services being worked by ex-SECR locomotives such as the R1 and H 0-4-4T's and D, E and L 4-4-0's. The C-classes were much in evidence for newspaper and parcels traffic. Liveries are maunsell olive and bulleid malachite. Modelling 1951-1967 All of the steam hauled passenger services are gone, replaced by a fairly diverse set of multiple unit classes. Freight is in a transition period from clapped out C-classes to Class 33's and 74's. There was much on the ex-SR that stayed in Malachite/Sunshine and even Maunsell Olive until being repainted into BR(S) Malachite in the mid 1950's, so there's a decent level of compatibility with the first half of this period and the second half of the previous. Modelling 1967-72 In this period we are doubling down on austerity, grime and dilapidation - brutalist architecture ontop of Victorian foundations. Though the trackplan is shared with the previous two periods, almost nothing else except any corporate liveried stock from end of the '51 to '67 era survives. Thoughts and opinions on a postcard, please!

I'm not sure that the vee being silghtly lower than the surrounding rails (within reason obviously) should be much of an issue with regard to alignment, isn't that being governed with the check rail on the opposite side? The bend of the knuckle should AFAIK be on the next timber across: Do you have a birds-eye view?

@Pixie I saw you did stainless etching for the grills on your diesel detailing - but it seems you are in the minority for this material - can you give any thoughts behind its use?

Thanks @Nigelcliffe - the info is appreciated. It seems 3-074 may be the correct width (14.2mm over pinpoints) and shares the same muff diameter - so I am resting my hope for a quick replacement that the axle on this part is split, and it could be a case of just press-fitting the axles onto the original muff. The top of the same unit got a little bit of love today, my first Worsley etch: Cheers,

Forward-Dating Experiment One of the changes when bringing a layout forward in period from the edwardian period towards the modern era, is that there is an upward trend of both operation (via push-pull and EMUs) and trackwork in efficiency. Due to the reduced complexity of trackwork, a single constructor can build 'more', but conversely more is required to visually balance a scene. For example, a four road HV in post-1925 configuration looks really quite anaemic: Post-1925 plan with a four-track station While the actual six road HV in the post-1925 configuration both looks right and has far less pointwork - two crossovers, two turnouts and a single slip. The whole visible section can fit in dead scale into two 3' x 18" boards: Post-1925 plan represented to scale In reality, between the first electrification in 1925, nothing changed from a track plan perspective until 1963, and of the buildings very little - the front of the station building took bomb damage and the overall roof valance was replaced - so I could essentially place the layout anywhere in that forty year period based entirely on what stock is running. It does bear considering, and there are some very interesting visual and design choices to come out of building a HV set in the 1970's - but far too little scope for operation or stock variety. It might require a bit of smudging around the edges

Hi Nick, no such luck for the express parcels units, they're as rare as the proverbial rocking horse s*** it seems! These are about 1mm out on the bogie centres, but otherwise spot on - I think I'll learn to live with that as they'll only be in one of four multiple unit bodie. Thank you for the tip on the spare wheels but I think the solution may be in cobbling together something from stub axles, wheel rims and brass if the 3-074 doesn't drop in nicely... EDIT: If anyone DOES have a parcels express unit they want to part with, I'll happily cross your palm!

Some time ago I mentioned I was buying a bulk load of Tomix TM-17 chassis from Japan to power some multiple units, well today I finally got one cracked open. This is what you see inside: The wheel is one piece with a shouldered stub axle. The axle's thicker diameter is 2.4mm and the inner is 1mm, the same as association pinpoints. Overall length from pinpoint to pinpoint is a shade under 14mm, but I imagine the pickups could be tweaked inwards. Note the traction tyre on the other wheelset! Here's a rough QCAD layout of the arrangement, for which I understand is shared by all Tomix chassis: I've sent a note to shop3 to see about the 3-074 'pinpoint ungeared graham farish DMU axle, 6mm' to see if this might be of assistance. Another option might be to turn down the wheel into a 'boss' and fit a 2mm loco wheel rim...

@justin1985 that is actually really fascinating. I had no idea - and CF is handled by so many people! I don't want to bite off more than I can chew - it seems there's as much to learn about the hobby meta as there is about the minutae. Definitely needs some time to perculate before any decisions or purchases are made, I think. Exploring a later era and backdating over time may make alot of sense in terms of achievability: A mixture of Maunsell Olive, Bulleid Malachite, 1st Generation EMUs and steam-hauled kent coast services certainly seems like it could be achievable in a much shorter timeframe. For the real Holborn Viaduct the whole bottom fell out of the station around the 1890's with the opening of St. Pauls (i.e. Blackfriars) and it was a steep decline from then until WW1 - by the end it had lost all the boat trains, about half of the suburban services, and its engine shed. By the outbreak of WW2 it had lost the last regular passenger steam working and during the blitz lost the original station building, with the roof following by the 1960's. It may even be worth exploring that later, dilapidated period also - I feel if we're going to model something other than the zenith of the british railways, there's always the melancholy opposite! Thank you for taking the time to reply, and stoking the coals of inspiration once again.

I'm having a right mare of a time trying to make a timetable out for the layout based on the real timetable - who'd have thought this was a complicated job?? Operation By my reckoning there are about 240 discreet movements in the working timetable. If omit a good portion of the suburban traffic which is essentially duplicated scores of times throughout the day, we can group the rest into 6-hour blocks. The timetable is suprisingly consistent throughout the day, so each block could realistically consist of: a couple of outer suburban trains (to Bickley, Gravesend, Chatham, St. Mary Cray), one or two inner suburban trains (to Crystal Palace, Catford, Greenwich, Shortlands and Beckenham), and one Express train (either a Boat train or a cheap, fast and heavy kent coast express) To make each block distinct, the 'morning' block could have have 2 workmen trains to/from Victoria and 2 goods trains to/from Maidstone and Dover, and the 'Dover Mail' trains. The midday block would have empty stock movements to Lougboro' junction as well as a Great Northern goods train. The afternoon block would have a couple of cheap and fast heavy expresses to the Kent Coast and ashford. The evening block would have both the Evening mail and Flushing Mail boat expresses to contend with shuffling between the arrival and departure platforms. Each block could have a different operational challenge: Morning - lots of up trains and goods trains to balance. Midday - Unclogging the station via ECS movements without blocking the GN goods Afternoon - Turning a pair of long, heavy trains through P4 to P1 while other movements are going on Evening - Boat trains are in the 'wrong order' and require multiple ECS movements to satisfy. Rolling Stock Proposition Stock wise, this has some interesting implications. As mentioned in a previous post it seems I can get away with only modelling the post-1874 designs of Kirtley. However, there was heavy reliance on much older motive power which hark back to the 'early railway'-type traditions of open footplates, outside frames and names instead of numbers. Clearly these would be a much greater challenge to take on - but it's there should I find the need! In terms of trains required to support the kind of operational paradigm described above, it seems there's a requirement for: Coaches - 40ish total 20 four and six-wheeled coaches for suburban services 5-10 shabby four wheelers to bolster workmens trains + kent coast expresses 12 bogie coaches for boat trains 6 or so carriage trucks, ventilated vans, passenger rated goods vans, etc. Locomotives (10 total) 4 Express locos (M, M3, Europa) 4 Suburban locos (A, R, Scotchmen) 1 Pilot, Workmen train loco (T) 1 Goods loco (B) Seems relatively reasonable to me!

Is there a meaningful difference between using something like QCAD vs Inkscape for etch design? I've used the former to trace out some GA drawings for scratchbuilding but not used it in anger with fills so either one will effectively be starting from scratch.

Operation Over the last few days I've been collating the WTT and PTT entries for the end of the Victorian period for Holborn Viaduct. After much sifting and removal of duplicate routes, I believe I have 'the' timetable covering 24 hours. Main Line Services - 67 total, 16 of which were considered expresses 14 Boat Trains, to Dover or Queenboro - again, all half-length due to joining with the Victoria portion at Herne Hill 46 Mainline trains to/from the Medway towns and Kent Coast -almost all half-length due to joining with the Victoria portion at Herne Hill 7 'Cheap and Fast' equivalents to the Kent Coast Suburban Services - 110 total to Victoria (9), Bickley (25), Beckenham (17), Crystal Palace (16), Greenwich (4), Tulse Hill/Penge/Sydenham (30) , and other misc. destinations (8 total) Miscellaneous housekeeping 30 Empty stock movements mostly to/from Loughboro Junction spread throughout the day 10 Workmans trains, all between 4 and 7am - primarily between HV and Victoria, and several 3-5am trains from Beckenham presumably for the parcels/newspaper workers 2 Light-engine movements from St Pauls (1 loco) and Stewarts Lane (3 locos) in the morning 3 LCDR goods train per day to Otford, Dover and Maidstone, and 2 GNR goods trains on their way from KX to Clapham Junction. No 'Up goods' ever shown, though. This implies a 3:2:1 ratio of suburban to mainline trains to 'housekeeping' movements. The real timetable shows some 240 movements, or 120 arrival/departure pairs, 20 of which are simultaneous with another movement. The next challenge is figure out how to pare this down to a representational timetable. Locomotive Roster Happily I've also recieved a copy of Bradley's "A Locomotive History of the LCDR" and so I can say with some authority that the locomotives thus required are: M-class 4-4-0's to pull the Dover and Queenboro boat trains and the heavily patronised cheap trains to and from the kent coast A-class and R-class 0-4-4T's to pull the inner suburban services T-class 0-6-0T for pilot and local goods duties B2-class 0-6-0 for goods The period I'm modelling had a series of incredibly elderly locomotives still working out of Holborn Viaduct - 0-4-2 well tanks dubbed 'Scotchmen' and 'Large Scotchmen' that dated back to the 1860's, and 2-4-0 express tender locomotives that predate even those - but I think these represent significantly more challenge in construction! It was also fairly endemic on the LCDR to just use 'whatever locomotive was available' on basically any route, so I've got that going for me too! Lastly,

Ah, perfect - to include then on my diagram somewhere but not on my layout (since that'll be off in my fiddle yard!)

Thanks chaps - I was mistaken - the 1896 OS grid shows a building adjacent the engine shed with track running into it - but the 1874 plan issued by the railway company shows it's a lamp hut and the buffers stop well ahead of it - the gap between that road and the adjacent engine shed road has a square marked 'coal stage' - apologies for any confusion, it wasn't intentional! See below for a picture. @RailWest I wrote '16' in my text but I did mean 17. @The Stationmaster also - platform 4 and shunt signal 17 reads back onto the up main. I guess it should be on the opposite side of the track to read that way, sorry! It absolutely would cause a bunch of congestion, see the real plan below. Please let me review your info re: locking and I will reply - thank you!!! There is no ground signal 4, but I assume you mean 9? three starters and four shunting signals would make a good deal of sense! This is the original 1874 plan which shows a lack of runarounds and the arrival/departure only platforms - albeit with six roads (three bidirectional) instead of four roads (two bidirectional) of my plan. By 1896 the crossover I have chosen to omit between P3/4 on my plan (P5/6 on the real plan) was added, as was extending the outer lane of the throat through a slip to the up main to allow bidirecitonal running of all lines. But in this case, inefficiency is interesting as long as it's not wildly unrealistic so I've chosen to adopt the slightly earlier pattern.

A wonderful discussion and I'm conscious that it will slip under the figurative waves in this thread of otherwise snappy question-answer posts, so I have taken the liberty of creating a post to collate the information discussed already, here:

A place to aggregate discussion of drawing etch artwork, designing etches, sending off to etching companies and etching at home split from the "Any Questions Answered" thread as clearly is not a simple Q/A. Extremely helpful advice already provided by @2mm Andy , @Crosland , @Ian Morgan , @Caley Jim and @richbrummitt :