Lacathedrale

I delved into the Invicta archives (the SECR society's magazine) and found some interesting information that can shape the layout: Permanent Way LCDR rail lengths were standardised at 28' panels with 10 sleepers per panel. The first sleeper was 1'1" from the rail end and thence on 2'10" apart. There was a trench (not an uncovered sleeper) for drainage every 6-7 sleepers. Ballast was river gravel and was specifically known to be to the rail bottom and the bottom part of the rail chairs and particularly untidy. Fishplates were notably heavy. LCDR Signals were essentially Stevens 'invisible' post design for single and double lattices, but some slotted wooden posts remained from the earliest days. Made of 1 1/14" corner angle, zig zagging every 18". The bottom of the post is 10" square,, and the top 7" square.. 10" rungs spacing on the ladders. Arms were normally 4'11" over a 10" boss which carried pivot - tip was 4'6" from pivot. Arm was 10" wide and made of wood. Working face was painted red with a white stripe 1'1" from the tip of the arm and being 10" wide. The rear was white with a black stripe. LCDR Signals were all over white except black on the signal lamp and the bottom 4' - including any lattice. Ground signals were painted white with a red square plate and purple glass standing 2'6" high as a fat tapered cylinder. In the 1890's the unilateral description of the urban termini were dark and dingy, garnished with a formidable array of advertisements and in much need of repair and not painted in any uniform colour or livery. Locomotives Liveries In the period modelled, any locomotives built by Martley (pre-1874) were maintained in a middle green, black bands and red/white lining, but by this point Kirtley's locomotives were painted overall gloss black with a grey band with white and red lining and concave corners. Towards the very end of the period, the corners became convex and goods locomotives were black with double red lining instead of the band. LCDR monogram was picked out in gold on the tender sides. Kirtley (CME) took over the locomotive department with a severe deficit of modern passenger and goods engines in 1874 but by 1876 had approval for the A, B and M classes (Known by their descendents the SECR H, C and D classes). I've got my hands on some juicy drawings. Locomotives for use on HV A-type passenger tanks of the 1870's were used on Crystal Palace (HL) and Orpington Services (highlighted by their scrapping upon electrification of those lines). It seems a rather bizarre 'Long Scotchmen' 0-4-2T was in use well until the end of the century as both a pilot and suburban tank locomotive, but I think that might be a bridge too far with outside frames AND an open cab and about the size of a stretched out Terrier! Unfortunately the T-type 0-6-0T pilot loco has a 7'4" + 7'6" wheelbase, rather than the 8' + 8'6" wheelbase of the Jinty - but I am seriously considering whether simply using the Jinty mechanism and footplate with a slightly elongated body might be a good solution to get an LCDR loco built early, despite the 3mm wheelbase discrepancy... Coaches Liveries Coaches were varnished teak with red shaded gold letters, and passenger-rated goods vehicles in a brown teak-coloured paint with yellow lettering. For express stock the seconds and thirds had white painted roof/sides, the former with bare wooden seats and the latter upholstered in red/green, while the firsts were upholstered blue cloth and varnished wood roof/sides. Most stock had a rod fitted over windows to procect travellers in tunnels. Roofs were initially white but weathered down to black almost immediately. Black ironwork. Often older stock would have eroded varnish, as a comparison GNR was lauded while other lines had 'teak coaches in any colour from yellow to dingy brown, almost black' . Main line stock circia 1880 had the LCDR monogram between compartments, suburban stock had 'L C & D R' on the coach panels. Ratios The LCDR was a financially troubled line, so continued building 4w and 6w stock late compared to other companies, rather than bogie coaches. In the 1880's a 4w coach was considered 'main line' stock. The ratio of coaches should roughly be 6:4:1 of four wheelers, to six wheelers, to bogie coaches. As a city terminus I imagine Holborn Viaduct would have fewer 4w coaches proportionally - but at least 50/50. 4w Stock One thing I hadn't really considered was that the David Gould books 'Carriages of the SE&CR' and 'Bogie Carriages of the SE&CR' have a definite trend towards later builds. At the time of the LCDR/SER concordat the former had over a thousand items of passenger stock - only eighty bogie coaches, four hundred 6w and the remainder were four-wheelers built prior to 1887. Interesting Train 1889-1893 a 'Club Train' or 'Paris Limited Mail' which was three cars and a fourgon - the four wheeled carriages (Nos. 255-258) with leather covered gangways painted olive green with the Wagon-Lits Company's name and handrails in bronze, plus a standard six wheeled brake van in teak that didn't match the rest of the train. Or, in reality from HV as a Long Scotchman + First Class + Luggage van to change at Herne Hill. Station Buildings References Invicta 16, 17, 39, 47, 91 Southern Wagons Vol. 3 Southern Suburban Steam

Many thanks both - I'll be reviewing those eagerly.

I have reviewed the IRSE green book on lever numbering and have seen these rules: The numbering layout should as far as possible be arranged that signalmen are pulling levers in ascending or descending numerical order All levers for the same routes should be as close together as ppossible. Signals: to be placed in the centre reading outwards, or the ends inwards (rather than interspersed), except for ground signals, which should be next to points through which they read. Point levers should go from low numbers left side (up), High numbers right (down) THis is what I have come up with. I've managed to simplify my plan somewhat, so hopefully that should simplify the signalling requirements: Home signals 1-3 read through to P4, 3 and 2 respectively. Crossover 4 is only used for a) shunting movements and b) departures, but its position means it's either the first lever pulled in an 'up' shunting move, or the last lever pulled in a 'down' departure. 5 and 6 are used for arrivals to P4, 3, and 2 and so are next. The outer throat lane levers 7-11 are bisected by ground signal 9 on one side, which handles movements from the up line, and capped by ground signal 11 which handles movements from the down line. I did not think it made sense to insert the coal stage headshunt or the engine shed trap into the middle of the running line levers, so those are 12-15. 16 is a shunt signal from P4 down to the up main, no other levers are involved and it's in the same direction of the starters, so I put it here. Platform starters count down from the other end of the frame so are 20, 19, and 18. Before I get into routing and locking - I just want to clarify, that I think in the era I'm modelling that the starters would have S shunt signals. Whether 17 and 9 would be as such I'm not sure.

Thank you @Ian Smith - it seems I'm going to need a good deal of coaches and underframes so maybe creating my own artwork or comissioning someone else to do so and getting them etched is a good shout - particularly as @justin1985 has also pointed out that etched bodies may also be more practical. Is there scope to start a thread dedicated to discussing custom etches, design, artwork, comissioning, etc. on the forum, do you think? If not I'll post my question here - where would I start, assuming I have a line drawing of what I want to etch and a rough idea of how it should go together?

I've designed the throat in the 1896 version and may have posted it on the templot site - it's just as bizarre but in different ways. Oh well, looks like this curio is destined for the X-files.

Trackplan OK, so I cross my heart and hope to die that this is the last time I post a templot screenshot. You will notice I have adjusted the sleeper spacing on the plain track to reflect the 30' rail panels used by the LCDR, and the practise of only exposing every 5th sleeper. I do not think I'm going to model chaired track on this layout, with the ballast up to the bottom edge of the rail, if not up the sides (in vogue until the 1880's apparently!). I have decided to take two key inspirations from the 1874 plan, shown below: The first change is really just an omission - the crossovers at the buffer-end on P1/2 (not pictured) and at the entrance of P3/4. This is for two reasons: The 1874 plan had arrival and departure only roads, and @t-b-g has spoken at length of the benefits of an arrival-only and departure-only setup on smaller terminus layouts in the 'Theory of General Minories' thread, and I think this is something I want to capture. More pragmatically, to create a 2+2 track layout was difficult with the extra length that the P3/P4 crossover added to the throat, and I could not think of a way to model the station canopy with a 1+2+1 track layout. The second change is the addition of the pilot siding back onto P3. This essentially forms a space for an 'up pilot' to shunt platforms 1, 2 and 3 without affecting the departures-only platform 4, and the rotation of pilot duties between multiple locos. Operations So P1 (bottom) is departure only, P2/3 are bidirectional, the former hosting a carriage dock, and P4 is arrivals only. Scenic Treatment The 1874 plan described what I think will be a really interesting vignette at the front of the layout - in the very foreground are dilapidated 18th and 19th century slums, behind those is a new carriage road running through an arched tunnel under the station, off of this lane there's a gateway into the station building, following a serpentine slope upwards to a cab-stand at platform level, which leads out to the main road on the right. On the prototype this is on the west/top side of the plan, but luckily for me - I'm not modelling the prototype! Rolling Stock As an aside, I did some digging around stock and have come up with some very high level plans in that area. I didn't realise that Wainwright essentially tore sheafs from Kirtley's book when it came to loco design - the H-class is essentially a straight line evolution from the A > A1 > A2 > R line, the C-class is a direct evolution of the B > B1 > B2 line, and the D-class comes straight from the M > M1 > M2 > M3 line. I've read that the T-class shunter used by the LCDR to shunt Victoria and Herne Hill has the same wheelbase as a Jinty too, so that's handy, as I've got a Jinty chassis I'm working on now! I have ordered the first (of many) 6w chassis from Bob Jones at Fencehouses, let's see how that goes.

Thank you Jerry - I am still firming up the specific wheelbases, but it looks like the LCDR used 15' for their 4w 26' coaches, and 18' wheelbases for their 6w coaches regardless of overall length (which varied from 26' - 30') . I've reached out to Bob at Fencehouses for his cleminson chassis, and it seems that David E. makes 19' w/b chassis already (which may be as good as is required, frankly!) for approx £15pp - does anyone have experience with either? If I lean into this project then I'm probably in for a score or so of the blighters, all told - so ease of construction and reliability, as well as accuracy are important. All the very best,

Shares in Tam Valley Frog Juicers

I've been reviewing a plan in the July 1874 edition of The Engineer for Holborn Viaduct, and it has a rather bonkers throat, excerpt of which is shown below. I'm not even going to think about the bonkers crossover from P4 to the 'engine pit', but the formation just above that is quite interesting. The plan was supplied to the magazine 3 months after the station opened, and prepared by W. Mills, the chief civil engineer for the LCDR - so I have no reason to doubt its accuracy, but seems unusable: I have drawn out the formation schematically - it appears to be a pair of single sided. tandem turnouts, the inner tandem having slip roads attached to each of the diverging routes: I have drawn the problematic section of the track plan in templot. The background shape with the plan on has been hidden for clarity, and I have omitted all routes which aren't part of this formation: It's not clear to me at all how this could work - infact, the whole plan seems unworkable with 2.5 chain radius curves and the aforementioned bonkers engine crossover which cuts through at least two sets of point blades. How would one manage the crossings in this formation? Is there even a way to approach this in templot!? I note that the 1896 OS grid map (so some 22 years later) does NOT show the tandem turnout in this location, the bottom-most route being removed to make it a simple single slip - so realistically this is something I could easily omit - but it is such a significant component of this early plan I find it hard to believe it would be unmodellable. Any thoughts?

Thank you @Caley Jim and @richbrummitt - I will confirm my exact requirements, but I imagine the Fencehouses adjustable underframe may cover my bases - and if not, I'll be in touch Rich. Thank you for the advise also with regard to the ballasting/chair proposition. For my chosen prototype it seems that ballasting was up to the rail sides until the 1880's (when it fell out of fashion due to issues around checking chair keys, etc.) and then 'just' over the sleepers well into the first decade of the 20th century,. I really like the look of chaired track in a normal context, but if I'm going to be be ballasting over the sleepers I wonder if cosmetic chairs/blobs might be an easier option - particularly since only every 5th sleeper was uncovered for drainage/etc. Cheers!

Comparing with the 1896 throat on the 50" OS grid map with that described in 1874, there are some major differences.. In the 1874 plan, P6 has no access to the down line, and P1 has no access to the up line, so it would appear the platforms by default arrival/departure only. There was almost nowhere to shunt the platforms at Holborn Viaduct in real life, the station limits a mere 120' beyond the last turnout before overlapping the throat at Ludgate Hill- and literally no way to pull stock out of P6 and replace into P1 without pulling all the way back into Ludgate Hill, crossing over the scissors there, and then pushing back into P1 -all the while blocking both arrivals and departures from HV. Given that, I can imagine that P1/6 were probably used less frequently, to avoid blocking the adjacent, much busier LH. Here are a comple of diagrams to compare: The list of changes are as follows: The addition of a crossover on P5/6 to make it bidirectional The addition of a runaround on P3/4 to allow the non push-pull fitted locos to runaround without needing to hand off to another engine The removal of the double-tandem-slip (maintenance? derailments?) to be replaced with... The addition of the slip friendly known in this thread as the "drunken-surveyor" slip to allow a connection from the up main to the outer throat lane. The not-pictured removal of the bizarre ash pit connection from P4 across P3/2/1 and the engine shed roads at almost 45 degrees (see plan in previous post). These changes greatly simplifity (!) the throat, so seem like obvious changes. There are no dedicated arrivals/departures platforms, and the only movement which is blocking is shunting on the down slow lines into Ludgate Hill for long trains which need tail traffc sorted, or to release locos from P1/2 or 5/6. I guess that even the Chief Engineer's didn't get it right first time, huh?

(removed)

I have been digging around in my books on the LCDR and found a reference to a series of articles in The Engineer circa summer 1874. Having found them online, I set about researching. In February, there's much discussion about this 'important new railway terminus' being built by the LCDR, with '300 men being put on by Mr. Mills on Sunday Night to effect the final up and down line changes'. In July, some few months after the station opened, there's series of articles through to August. It is located approximately at the confluence of the Oldbourne and Fleet River. Construction was commenced in February 1872 removing a series of old buildings, 'unsightly and unsavory alike'. (There are articles in the Civil Engineers books of permitting buildings on land owned by the LCDR exterior to the station being pulled down at cost of salvage, so presumably they stuck around outside the perimeter for longer). A wonderful reference to the removal of 'breakneck steps' at Bishops Court (top of the following plan, east in real world). I have come across a rail plan for Holborn Viaduct drawn by the civil engineers office which is significantly less drunken than the OS grid version. HV only opened in March 1874 so a scant few months before these drawings were published. There are some curious points, see below, which makes me wonder if this was a plan drawn ahead of time and amended during construction... Some interesting things to note which could be ported over to my plan: The platforms are numbered in reverse to that in the SECR era - with platform road 1 being directly connected to the up line. There are NO runarounds at all - the dashed line underneath roads 1 and 2 is the metropolitan extension running underneath towards Farringdon Very odd platforms - looks like Road 1 has no access to the down line, Road 2 and 6 has no access to the up line either. I wonder if there was an assumption that these platforms would be arrival/departure only, or wrong-way-running into Ludgate Hill? Apparently there was no issue with horrendous curvature on the crossover from No 3 road towards the engine shed headshunt, crossing the multiple turnouts en route??? Frankly this seems like a bizarre connection as it's the only platform with a direct connection... The engine shed headshunt was only enough for an ash pit, so presumably wagons were pinched back into the siding adjacent. The siding adjacent the engine shed was NOT a goods shed, just a road to stable wagons for a coaling stage. No 2 road has an end loading dock, so carriage trucks, horse boxes, etc. abound There are also some fabulous drawings of the overall roof and profile, which I have amended to a four-platform variant here: There are also drawings of the columns, trusses and further '3D' details around the access to the low level station, the hotel, etc. which can follow in due course. A description of the various components: The site of the station is 750' x 135' . The sub-roadbed is approximately 50' above the OS datum. Platforms are 4' higher than sub roadbed. The ascent to HV is 1:100, with the final 900' level. The descent to the low level station is at 1:40. The station roof is in 3 bays on lattice girders with large glass panes, supported by three ranges of columns of 12, 21' high. Access to the cab road is from bear lane (underneath the station) and winds up serpentine to platform level, then out onto holborn viaduct itself. The station building (beyond the hotel) is open to the road with arches, roofed by transverse arches and paved with 3" 'cubes'. Most of the extra space under the station is used for stabling, coal storage, etc. Figures from 1891 show that Holborn Viaduct accounted for a mere 2% of railway traffic into the city, and a mere half a percent of city commuters overall! No wonder the LCDR doubled down on newspapers and parcels! To clarify just how many LCDR stations were in this area:

Morning gentlemen - I have two small questions, relating to a potential pre-group setting of a layout I'm building: If I assume 3D printed bodies, the only challenge for coaching stock is the underframe - is there a standard 28' 6w chassis available? Who should I contact to comission one? For those modelling the 19th century: Did you ballast over sleepers? Did you use chairplates/etc. or not bother? What material did you use to ballast? It would seem that my potential chosen company (the LCDR) used shingle - so I would assume something like sharp sand mixed with filler or tiling grout, cleaned off the rail sides

Timbers laid out for the slip below the penultimate coach pictured above. After some head scratching with @justin1985 I'm going to combine bench-building and building in-situ, by building all of the slips on the bench, and then hand laying the 'regular' turnouts between them. One interestingfeature is that the timbers only span either end - those on the left will be extended when the adjacent turnout is laid in-situ. Another last (hopefully!) change to the track plan is the conversion of the double slip on the engine shed road into a barry slip - there's no need for access from P1 to the goods headshunt, so no need for the extra complexity. Pictured below - note there's no left-right straight connection. I am still no closer to a concrete decision on pre/post-group/post-electrification or indeed a company, but I am thinking that anchoring the layout in the period 1896-1906. This would allow me to depict coaches in LCDR varnished teak and locomotives in black lined red for goods and black lined grey/red for passengers, like BR lined black. By having a flexible time period, I could also model the more well known purple lake and green of the SECR - with bogie birdcage and the C-class both available RTR. At the other end of the spectrum, there were 1869-built 2-4-0 outside-framed locos pulling express services out of HV to the coast at the middle of the time period, so I also have the opportunity to go a bit mental. If my modelled period moves around (I can imagine building tiny pre-group 0-4-4T's isn't going to be easy) then the layout could easily be forward-dated to the 30's or 40's by laying of conductor rails on the outermost platform faces. A little more reading around HV in the LCDR period shows that the LSWR used the sidings that were on the site of what was to become Holborn Viaduct, before it was built, to return trains from Wimbledon/Merton - but I also found that they did the same with Holborn Viaduct itself to ease congestion until the service ceased in 1906. No meaningful operational interest other than running around between P2 and P3 and out again, but at least I can buy something from the 2mm association shops rather than scratchbuilding!

Thanks @The Stationmaster . My interpretation of ground signal 8 is that it could read through to any platform road,, and that 9 is used only by P4 to access the down, since the distance between 9 and 6 is too small to hold a train of any sort? These are the routes that I've figured out: I have included any turnout which the route traverses, is that about right? What is the next step to translate this into a locking table?

@LNERGE you're absolutely right - at least from my uneducated eye. Would I need a subsidiary signal under 1,2,3,4 to signal movement from the up line into the ES, or would I assume the pilot would simply move into a platform road and back out onto the down main and use 8? I'm just having so much trouble trying to figure out the order to write this locking down - I feel like I just can't get it Some parts seem easy, and others I just get up all in a twist. I'll sort the numbering now.

@The Stationmaster , @Grovenor's most recent plan includes the trap and ground signal on the engine shed road so that's good. Working on a locking table now...

Thanks Keith, definitely more to learn - such simple rules feel so bloody complicated when it comes to a real implementation! Thanks for the tip on sorting the locking of points first, I'd been going by signals locking opposing signals first! EDIT: thanks for the diagram, why did you change the lie of 10? Any particular distinction between your recommendation of implementing 21 and 22 as box controlled and Mike's suggestion of hand signaled and hand-levers?

Hi @Titanius Anglesmith - good point for the ground signal at 11, thank you - added here as 21.. As for the 8/13/x arrangement, I think I've got what you mean here: Ground signal 8 set to a yellow since at caution it will still permit access into the headshunt and goods shed at y. Presumably 1,2,3,4 and 18 would be on a signal gantry across the tracks, and the longer platforms (1 and 4) would have calling on arms, and the platform starters would have shunt signals (in the pre-group era) to permit movement out to 18. That particular formation in 'real life' looks like this, with the standard 4 tank on P1 and the two sidings off to the bottom-right of the photo: Originally I had depicted ?? as a double slip - the headshunt providing a trap for both the loco and goods shed roads. In reality I found while signalling the plan that there is no need for a route from P1 into the headshunt over y, since the goods siding was only long enough for 2-3 wagons and the engine shed lead would be fine for that, so I changed it to a barry slip (where the two curved roads never join) - however if there's a compelling reason to choose one over the other I'm all ears.

@Caley Jim do you have any videos of the whole layout? I've seen so many MRJ-style close in shots that really show how wonderfully detailed it is, but I find it hard to see the overall context.

Ah! Yes, it's not very clear between 5, 10 and 11 what's going on - 5 and 10 are 'just' turnouts and 11 is a single slip - but I guess in terms of interlocking 5 and the opposide end of the slip would work effectively as a crossover. shown 5 as the opposite end of the slip previously known only as 11 erased some of the tail of point 10 so it's a more clear arrangement re-added ground signal 8 at point 13, if that's what you meant!

Thanks Mike, I really appreciate that! I guess by keeping 6 and 7 separate I figured that it would be better to ensure conflicting movements couldn't be signalled, but shows I was mistaken. 1) signal arms moved. 2) 6 and 7 amended as described, I think! 3) ground signals in sidings removed, points x and y converted to hand levers - unless X needs to be in the frame since technically it's a trap for the loco shed? 4) double slip changed to barry slip Era is pre-group southern regions (specifically LCDR/SECR) in the edwardian period - so presumably shunt signals on the platform starters and calling-on arms on the homes?

The IRSE booklets have been very helpful for me in understanding signalling and interlocking more fundamentally, thank you very much for the recommendation. I am still a bit fuzzy on the specifics, but I'm getting there! My first draft of my own signalling diagram looks something like this (I know the levers need re-numbering!) My very first draft for the interlocking is all over the place, though! For now I'm just trying to get the signals interlocking properly! I appreciate that a good deal of the interlocking further along will come from the turnouts, however. P4 home - locks 2, 3, 4 P3 home - locks 1, 3, 4 P2 home - locks 1, 2, 4 P1 home - locks 1, 2, 3 Up main to P4 - Up main connection - Up main to P3 - Up main to P2 - P4 to down main - P2 to down main - P1/2 to down main - P3 to P2 crossover - P1 to down main / loco shed area double slip - P4 starter - locks 15, 16, 17 P3 starter - locks 14, 16, 17 P2 starter - locks 14, 15, 17 P1 starter - locks 14, 15, 16 Advanced starter - locked by 9 or 11 P3 crossover ground signal - released by 12, locks 20 P2 crossover ground signal - released by 12, locks 19 (spare) Loco shed yellow ground signal - released by 13, locks 24 Goods? shed ground signal - released by 25 Headshunt to P1 ground signal released by 13, locks 22 Goods? headshunt - After writing out the above, I wonder if 13 should be a barry slip rather than a double slip? I can't see a reason from P1 to engine/goods headshunt) Might also be easier to route 'by default' the up into P3 and down into P2? (rather than p3 and p4 respectively) ?

So, after having a few beers and musing on this with @justin1985 again - I think no matter how I slice it, the prototype Holborn Viaduct is just too much - too much of everything: capacity, size, complexity, difficulty, etc. etc. I am comfortable mating my abilities and wants with what the prototype did to create an interpretation that has the right balance. With that in mind, I feel I have settled on a plan which achieves this: The main difference of this plan is the introduction of the additional lane in the throat. This has split the pinch point centered on the original double slip between two single slips, and so the only move which blocks the throat is an arrival into P1. Additionally, pilot shunting can take place on all roads without blocking arrivals from the up line. The use of four rather than six platforms makes the plan made this much simpler than the prototype, and having successfully hand laid all the track depicted, I am confident in my ability to take this forward. The red highlighted double slip is a an optional amendment, which I'll play by ear. It brings the track diagram closer to the prototype and helps fill out some of the dead space in the throat. Here's an aerial view over La Belle Sauvage showing an express pulling into P2 while a local stopping service reverses out of P1 - an example of the kind of movement not possible on the original stylised plan: Express pulls into P2 while a local reverses out of P1.