Lacathedrale

I am planning on a more low-key design in line with the real HV overall canopy, with platform canopies coming further out into the middle of the layout, as below:

This is what the front of the layout looks like at this point, roughly: After looking at this shot, provided by @TJ52 : And the ever more pointed adhesion to Holborn Viaduct, if it might be a good idea to include a representation of the descent towards the Metropolitan Extension and Farringdon at the front of the layout: The signal box over the gradient would provide an excellent view block for the trains going to/from the station on the top of the viaduct - and there is still a slice of space left for a ground-level scene. After some conversation with @justin1985 the 'sea of tracks' might be egregious, but the various levels of the train shed, platforms, water tank/shed, viaduct, gradient, buildings behind, signalbox in front, and this slice of ground-level should hopefully stop it from looking like baby's-first-fiddle-yard. Additionally, the adjacent 90 degree curve module (yet to be constructed, obviously) will have a much greater depth and that bridge over Ludgate Hill - so should hopefully balance the 'high level' focus of this board. I would very much appreciate any comments or thoughts on this adaption.

Cheers, it feels more functional than nice to me at the moment, but that's often the case with fiddle yards I guess Talking to @gordon s about the diamond shown previously, I've ordered chairs and fishplates from Hattons, as well as some limewood strip for timbers. I'm wondering about how to fill out the middle of the diamond, either with a full diamond-shaped set of rails, or two separate check rails adjacent the k-crossing. Fortunately, here's a picture from Ludgate Hill towards Holborn Viaduct circa 1950 which shows both: Ludgate Hill towards Holborn Viaduct circa 1950 railtour. Ludgate hill towards Holborn Viaduct circa 1953 railtour. The reverse of this arrangement is shown below, this time the 'full' diamond on the left and pair-of-check-rails on the right: Holborn Viaduct (?) towards Ludgate Hill, circa 1970 The Left hand shows two discrete check rails, and in the middle of the scissors crossing on the right hand shows a single diamond-shaped set of rails. I guess I have the choice of my own!

Thank you both, the viaduct section is fully removable, so I can remove that and get full access to all the guts above and below easily, and then replace back afterwards. I will lay the timbers in line with the diamond, and then thread the running rails alongside. Happily, it seems the widest section is just about 110mm so the packs of pre-cut ply sleepers crom C&L (despite their supply problems) will be quite suitable. Thank you both! @dasatcopthorne - Saffron Hill is quite nice - I think I've seen a layout called this already? As for progress, the FY throat is shaping up nicely: I'm glad that the lines don't wobble all over the place The slip is non-functional in the straight arrangement, only coming into play with an expansion board which will run the connection onto the up main, to allow the FY operator to shunt both sides of the yard to remarshal things 'hands off'. All of the jumpers have been cut, new bindings to adjacent stock rails for the switchblades, and both holes for the frog droppers (now isolated) and future tie-bar actuation have been implemented. I'm not 100% on the strategic solution for point actuation, so my plan is to fit frog juicers so I can flick these over by hand in the interim. I'm not interested in DCC controlled turnouts, but motorisation linked to a lever frame does appeal - this way I can go either way and I'm not boxed in. At the edge, they are soldered to DCC concepts pre-etched PCB sleepers. I've used some thin card to raise the level fo the PCB sleeper up to kiss the underside of the rail. To secure the alignment across boards I've continued the single piece of flexitrack onto the second board, where it will recieve similar treatment before being sliced through with a dremel/etc. The FY modules are 3' each, so just about the length of a piece of Peco flex - nothing but a little trimming required.

Here's the templot plan for my 24 degree diamond and asymmetric three-way laid in place onto the plan: I gather that the timbers for the diamond will have to extend to support the parallel tracks either side, so as to avoid an interlacing nightmare? Not sure whether to bring the whole viaduct into my workshop and lay all the track in one go, or to lay the crossing/turnout individually and slot them into place when complete - any ideas?

So passengers cross the goods loop and the running line to get to the platform?

Well, not a huge amount done - spent most of the day sitting on my hands waiting for a delivery, finally able to get to the workshop and then I realise I'm out of insulated rail joiners and etched PCB sleepers: Tracks extend off the board on the right because they'll extend onto the next FY baseboard, the join will be reinforced with aforementioned etched PCB sleepers and then the slice made in situ. In my research I came across an only tangentially related photograph, that of the ex-SER/Croydon line's Bricklayer's Arms while it was still recognisable as the 1860's passenger terminus. Interestingly William Cubitt (of Euston fame) designed the portico. Does anyone think that the artist might have been exaggerating in this period print?

Thanks chaps, I'll do my best to try and live up to these high expectations @Mikkel you're quite right that trying to plan too much flexibility is a little fatiguing (although i would take umbrage with the idea that your layouts 'dont fit together' - it seems quite the opposite) - the bare faced fact is however, that I do need some kind of corner piece, so in the meantime I will have to rig SOMETHING up, even if it's just a curved plank of wood with setrack stuck to it with tape. Missing this piece won't preclude the completion of the layout, or of running of it operationally, but would cause by neccesity it to be set up in the garage/on the patio/inside the livingroom rather than in a permanent location. On that note, I've ordered the second FY board from Tim H. and the hinges for it - and should be in a good position to finish the FY itself fairly soon. @TJ52 @MarshLane I listened to a lecture-course on Victorian britain which did much to highlight the wonders of the era, but it also did highlight the meagre plight of so many. That said, my world is much like O.S.Nock quotes (paraphrased) in 'South East and Chatham Railway' - suspended as if on thin air above the chimney pots of <the City>', and a world of polished brass, steam oil and varnished teak.

It could - but I think as-is it will definitely be something I tackle after the rest of the layout is complete Not the most exciting of jobs admittedly, but rail being laid in the FY: The two FY boards will be connected with offset strap hinges - lots of space at the throat end in evidence makes a good spot for a mug of tea and a programming track, I think!

My C&L 00-SF gauges arrived on Saturday, so I can shortly get started on laying out the pointwork. The next step is to lay the throat of the FY which should be fairly easy - and in the meantime I'm mulling over ideas for the corner piece - I've realised I need to ensure that one side only has a 6" projection in order to not block a window, so the view gets fairly narrowly focused quite quickly: This is just about the size of the visible section - there is about another foot of railway either side of this visible slice but due to the nature of the footprint (see below) it's hidden in the wings. For example, the crossover from the rear to front track is entirely hidden by the right-hand building, and I imagine we have our Ludgate Circus-style cameo in the middle. In the above section, the purple line represents where the scenic back-scene must end, in order to not block a window behind - and flat to the baseboard surface. As you can see from the plan view, it's almost like a shadow-box. Given the fairly limited opportunity to appreciate visuals in this location, I am considering how I might 'knock through ' the station throat board into this, removing the vertical support and unifying the scene - without compromising the layout when arranged with only the FY in-situ. Something to figure out on my trip back to leicester in a few days. For now I think it's time to sort the FY out!

My track orders arrived this morning so there are gratuitous shots of peco-on-wood included shortly, but still no hide nor hair of the C&L gauges for 00-SF that I ordered at the start of December. Station throat laid roughly in place The double slip is code 75 streamline and for illustration purposes only - its real location is on the fiddle yard. The below view highlighted to me that it might be neat to have at least partial viewing through the side of the station canopy onto the platforms - maybe either perspex or representative arches in silhouette for the near-side wall? Simulated cameo view through to the station platforms The FY boards need to be raised by 74mm so that the surface of the board is level with the surface of the viaduct. The throat and optional curve need to be cross compatible so it means the legwork needs to occur on the FY1 board. My solution is as follows: Mock-up adapter plate to validate alignment and clearances Adapter plate glued and pinned together In the latter picture, you can see how I have duplicated the TH approach of recessing the steel dowel surround in one layer of wood, while it's screwed to the next. In this particular shot they're just shown for effect, and the bolts adjacent are tightened just enough to hold the plate together while it dries. I'll probably end up screwing this to the FY board end, rather than making trouble for myself with something removable.

Shunt signal at 11 included, thank you - that's really the crucial aspect of this discussion and I do appreciate it. Thank you for the advice that the ringed shunt-ahead signals would not be required, but they are such an iconic part of the Charing Cross/Holborn Viaduct stations I'm modelling I feel that they are a neccesary inclusion even if not strictly neccessary. I'll need to include FPL covers on basically all my turnouts apart from 17? If I change the distant to an outer home, it puts crossover A-B into the remit of my signalbox -but I feel that this crossover must work independently of the station. In that case, distance X/Y should definitely suit an outer home, but operationally may better be represented by an advanced starter/distant?

Gotcha - thank you! Are the signals alright? At least now they face the right way...

There is definitely enough space between points 11 and the advanced starter, but there's also not enough space for advanced starter to home too - but if I can get away with a slotted advanced starter/home with some 'special instructions' to cover that idiosyncrasy, that seems like a happy compromise. You mentioned that the slips/crossovers would be worked by one lever, but @Joseph_Pestell has stated the opposite - which one is it? I assume the down main (as per my diagram) will be used for all shunting as you have said, @Nick C If we sidestep the intricacies of the interlocking and numbering (everyone's comments on which I'm very thankful for and still trying to grasp - clearly there is more studying to be done) - do the signals now work? I have: Tidied up the right hand side: Added the slotted advanced starter/home (numbered 25 for reference) Added representations of the ground signals controlled by bridge box (ref C and D) for crossover A + B Added representation of the starter for the bridge box (ref F) Removed the call-ahead signals on the home, since this will be covered by shunt ahead signals from the platform roads and the Up main won't be shunted

Reworking the signalling based on the advice so far - so just to be clear, there should be an Advanced Starter between X and the blue 'home' signal? Presumably there should be at least one train length between it and the blue home signal? In my case, I don't have that space - there is approx one train length between point 11 (on my diagram) and the blue home.

Had to believe quite how spot on you've got the weathering on that van, good show. Is the overall layout footprint going to remain the same now you have these separate return loops, or will it be extended to 170cm * X ?

This exact sentiment is something I was talking about (to myself) the other day while trying to explain my choice of railway era. As a simile, you can talk to your parents about their trials and tribulations, hopes and dreams. Hopefully you can talk to your grandparents about it too. But when you get to your great grandparents, you're really diverging from any common ground beyond the basest of human emotion/feeling because their life context was so different - and your great-great grandparents may as well be aliens from another planet. This is why, IMO, it's very hard to attract people to 'early railways' beyond a superficial level because the conventions we associate with railways (such as the rough shape of carriages, locomotives, the speed at which things happen, the size and shape of platforms and signals, etc. have been so thoroughly ingrained in us that to diverge - even with the tacit acceptance that this is a whole new kettle of fish - looks very jarring.

The FY are fans of sidings beyond the blue block - so in order to reduce handling, there is an on-layout trailing crossover. It is not neccesary for any movement to actually pass the layout's home signal - but just an explanation of why it's there and not signalled/interlocked. If there we I imagine a bell code 'shunt into forward section' would be sufficient on that odd occasion. @Nick C - I originally sited an Advanced Starter just ahead of the blue signal box's home - is it worth adding back? Reading through your interlocking list now, I'll need to digest - thanks!

Here's the track diagram, set in ex-SER/LCDR territory pre-1913 (hence red distant signal at 24, and ringed shunt-ahead signals on the platforms): A few small notes: x and y represent a train length distance, as well as the boundary of the main layout. From 'x' to 'down' (and 'y' to 'up') is on a separate optional board. the blue section, levers and signal is the next signal box block, after which there is an immediate exit to a FY. It is neccesary to support moves from the Down line, over the crossover and towards Y (but not the home signal) to shunt the FY - hence the placement of this box's home signal and the use of a second block. For this diagram/signalling solution, I have not included any interlocking for turnouts A and B forming that crossover, or ground signals C/D, or that box's Advanced Starter lever 24 represents a distant signal for this box the group of six levers 18-23 is the home signals for this box - there is no direct access to platform 1 from the up main, so it is omitted. Here is my understanding of how the interlocking would work - there are a number of implicit locks, for example Lever 1 platform starter being pulled off, is only contingent on lever 10 being off already - but lever 10 is contingent on lever 11 being off, and so on. Summary: Each turnout is locked by specific requirements and geometry (i.e. for 12 to be closed, 13 must be closed also) The Distant is unlocked to pull off by available platform route indicated by home 18, 20 or 22 Each Home arm is locked by outbound starter/shunt signals from the relevant platform Each platform starter is mutually exclusive with all other platform signals, since the next signal is the following boxe's home signal Each platfom shunt ahead signal is exclusive with its own starter I would really appreciate any thoughts or comments on this one!

My copy of 'London's Lost Railways' by Klapper has turned up, so I thought I'd add a few quick snaps: Some LMS trains in East Croydon: Also, the Midland running through Farringdon towards the Widened Lines:

So, obviously no progress on the layout while I've been away for work - but my evenings spent in a hotel in Leicester have not been idly wasted. The first task was to figure out if I'm going to use the asymmetric 3-way and short crossing from Peco, or hand-lay my own. Realistically, hand-laying was the only choice. I have replicated the Peco 3-way below, and a 'standard turnout' above. In my specific case I can spare the extra three inches on the right, and the upper road can diverge at a fairly shallow angle, since it's set further back. This results in a 32" and 27" radius tandem, instead of a 23" and 17"(!) in the Peco (that said, I'm sure I could tweak the peco with curviform vees, etc. to lessen the effective minimum radius). I know the tandem in the below screenshot needed cleaning up - I decided and deleted the 3-way before doing that, so this is the only picture I have of them both in one comparative diagram. It seems an obvious choice which to go for: Peco 3-way (bottom) vs Tandem double-sided B6 (top) Additionally, I went on a little bit of a spree on abe-books.co.uk and bought some more reference material for a few pounds each: Locomotives of the South Eastern & Chatham Railway, D L Bradley Wainwright and His Locomotives, K Marx (!) South Eastern and Chatham Railway Album, P K Jones Bradshaw's Guide: LCDR by S Jeffs Illustrated Guide to the South Eastern Railway 1866 by G Measom Lastly, as something of a birthday treat, I've grabbed a 6-pin decoder for my Terrier, and what off the shelf pointwork I am going to use. I've got myself a curved turnout as described in this thread for the FY up to down headshunt - but may end up hand-laying this one regardless.

First Quarter annual or Fiscal?

Thank you Martin, changes duly made. Do you have the functionality in Templot to illustrate that special machined wing rail?

Thanks John - that's what I've done to get it as small as you see - I changed from bent to machined and reduced the flange length - it originally overlapped the adjacent switch rails. I think, looking at the Peco equivalent, that this might just be a limitation of a fairly sharply curved tandem turnout - I guess one has to hope that the topmost wing rail is doing its duty!

The following is a tandem turnouts in 4SF - It is a standard B6 derived tandem with the lower/left road exiting at 12 degrees to match the standard Peco bullhead pointwork I'm using elsewhere: However as you can see, the middle crossing's right wing rail is miniscule. In practise I would probably plane off both sides of the rail to extend it into the nook of the crossing - it just feels very small!