Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Recent Profile Visitors

1,785 profile views

Lacathedrale's Achievements



  1. First I need to get the ground levels set up properly, which after some musing I think I can achieve - the distance from the top of retaining wall to the backscene is 80mm at its narrowest, and I have some 80mm strip left over from the original ply sheet. This will mean I can kick the can of the GPO platform question down the road a little further. I feel that this GPO platform is rapidly becoming a textbook case of "killing [my] darling" - though it is an interesting modelling opportunity, I can't really get over the demands it will require scenically to the rest of the layout. Operationally, I think it might be MORE interesting to use P1 for off-peak parcels/newspaper usage, as it will require shuffling carriages around from inbound trains, those on the platform and any of those in the runaround - while dodging outbound services from P2. Additionally, I was really hoping to avoid the high degree of parallelism which is anathema to a natural-looking diorama, and the inclusion of the GPO platform forces even more straight lines into what is already quite a linear layout.
  2. With the other video Jago Hazzard did about Central Croydon and now this, one might think he follows this thread...
  3. This isn't strictly a scale model so also doesn't fit in the exact theme of the thread. It's a Stuart 10V stationary engine, all but finished now. This video was taken during the first trial assembly and is missing the valve components: I've got to repair a damaged valve spindle and bolt it together, and it's finished. And now I find myself in something of an impassé for my next project. I think I've narrowed it down to four options: all are well established and documented designs and I have the tools and physical capacity (if not the skills) to either. A 5" Gauge SECR L-class 4-4-0. My 'apex predator' project has always been a 5" Gauge loocmotive, but really I've no idea if I have the skills to pull it off and it's a huge undertaking over a very long period indeed. The complexity of this build is several orders of magnitude more challenging than anything I've ever done, and the cost in time and money is very high - £3,000+ over 4 to 6 years. The main carrot for this is that when the project is complete, there is a local track less than a mile away that would love to have more locomotives and drivers to pull public trains, and it would in theory have some level of utility when it's done. While not my favourite locomotive, it's certainly very attractive and has the benefit of being a well proven design. A coal fired 2.5" Gauge LBSCR H2 4-4-2. I went as far as to buy laser cut steel frames and materials for a good part of this locomotive already. While still pricey, it would account for around a quarter of the investment in time and money in comparison with the 5" Gauge L-class. There's significant less to do with this model when it's done, however. Indeed, my love affair with 2.5" cooled somewhat when I came to realise there was precious little in the way of tracks, clubs, or people in the south of the country - but it's a solid condender for a beautiful locomotive, and I have a strong affection for the locomotive and the line, this photo being taken about 100yds from my house in 1925 was definitely a big influence! The following two are a pair of options which are less about the result and more about the process: I could build a much larger stationary beam engine, i.e. the Tubal Cain "Mary" Non-condensing Beam Engine. It's more complex than the Stuart 10V above, but significantly less than the H2. I could also build a Gauge 1 LMS 4F - it's the simplest live steam locomotive and can be produced entirely by fabrication with the exception of the wheel castings. It's by far the cheapest option, clocking in at around £250 including the wheels, and would likely be the quickest - less than a year to complete if I pulled my finger out. The unfortunate thing is that I couldn't care less about the 4F, and the other G1MRA locomotive builds such as the SECR D-class or H-class while attractive are at least as costly and complex as the H2 - which defeats the object of doing something in Gauge 1 entirely! I appreciate this is a railway modelling forum than a model engineering one - but I would appreciate any thoughts or feedback.
  4. On that note, I recieved an email from the proprietor who said there should be an announcement of sorts at the end of the month.
  5. Mockup mocked up: ] Platform-side Road-side - minus recessed canopied area Original photograph showing roughly the same aspect.
  6. Buxted was built in the same year and has a similar frontage, albeit a narrower waiting room and in parallel to the tracks rather than as a terminus. Though superficially similar however, it's quite different in detail!
  7. My method to draw up the station building is inspired by @Nick Holliday - using GIMP's perspective tool to get one of the building faces looking broadly orthogonal in one axis, then measuring the pixel length to known real measurements to calculate a given px/ft ratio on that axis, then simply measuring from edges and corners. Here's what the distorted picture looks like: Clearly, it's foreshortened - but I don't care what the actual widths are, just their relative proportions to each other. For reference, this is the original unmodified photograph: This is what I've come up with, it feels about right to me: Central Croydon Station Building Frontage v1.0 I now need to figure out the chimneys! I think we can determine that the leftmost chimney sits in the middle of the two storey station master's house - three flutes in the chimney imply four pots on top, one for each of the four rooms sited centrally. Photograph of Central Croydon station likely >1886. In 1851 Hammond was an ironmonger situated in Croydon specialising in Ploughs, Stoves, etc. - and Hussey was a gentlemen. Presumably they went into business together for the depot shown! The other well known picture shows the platform side, and the silhouette of the middle chimney - emphasis mine because it's horridly over exposed: It looks like the north waiting room chimney has two pots, and is not hard up against the butt gable. Without a floor plan it's impossible to know what the purpose of these two pots are, any ideas? Both for a fireplace at one end of the waiting room? Lastly, the south chimney appears to be positioned against the theoretical line of the booking office wall underneath the cross gable and has three pots - one for the booking office and two for the south fireplace? One must remember the double windows of the booking office are offset towards the waiting room and I believe the cross gable would be roughly where the sawtooth canopy sits - and is just blown out by the exposure. It is after looking at this platform view I wonder if the main doors were double - likely - rather than the single I have drawn. I will also assume the brick stripes on the front of the building carry on around to the rear, giving a good datum. This view also highlights how the booking office is flush with the waiting room on platform side.
  8. Interesting thought - having it cut into the wedge at the throat end would give a tunnel with about 9' head height - enough for a postie? Or maybe just have the conveyor + maintenance access door going this way? This picture shows a 'minimum island platform' width for the passenger platform, and the imagined depth of the GPO platform. The dashed corner shows the theoretical path of the connection. Presumably if this were a conveyor, then anything on trolleys would have to go the long way around down Katharine Street, through the side entrance and clutter up P1...
  9. I would appreciate some thoughts on the following. I do really like XtrkCAD for laying out simple problems such as siding lengths and testing train routes/etc. - but templot it ain't. I've sketched up the precise buildings/platforms and roadway details - as you can see, it's much skinnier than the plan above: Katharine St. v3.2 - CAD render While the width of the platforms is at the station building end is as per the prototype, the original of course didn't have a parcels bay. Due to the zig-zag alignment of Katherine St - if straightened out It's just about possible to a minimum width single-sided platform infront of the bay, and then quite a narrow GPO platform behind it. I'm finding it hard to figure out how the GPO platform would fit - being in a cutting it would make sense for there to be an overhead conveyor to an adjacent building, but Katharine St. is directly behind the station on both a hill and a bus route, so a conveyor would need to be 25' above that too and suddenly with the limited available width too - it all seems a bit contrived. The alternative is to omit the GPO platform, and as per most suggestions of the prototype's expected behaviour, effectively dedicate P1 for parcels and mail traffic for portions of the operating session. This is what the original platform and road alignment looked like: Katharine St. v4.0 - CAD render without GPO I like that we've broken up the schematic-like parallelism. In both diagrams the dotted lines show the original platform extents - beyond this I'll be modelling SR concrete platform extensions. We could further break up the linearity by extending P2 (bottom) in a curve around the neck of the throat as shown in the 1896 drawings. This is what the retaining wall looks like now: This is the original section by the tunnel, you can see the lighter coloured brick where the road was straightened as part of the town hall / garden construction some time around 1890. In my v4.0 plan above, the retaining wall would kink angle out towards the office buildings in the background. Of note, the SEGAS building is pictured right - looking fairly boring here - the good stuff is on the rounded corners and arched ground floor. Also noting the interesting railings.
  10. A few hours work have resulted in the scenic board being mostly complete using 6mm ply and 20x30mm PSE in the corners. I will need to support the rear edge of the baseboard surface with some offcuts, and I will add the diagonal bracing when I'm sure of the track positionining and that I'll be clear of any turnout tie bars. Speaking of which: A view from the treetops along the south side of Fair field, looking over the station toward the High Street. A view from atop Park Lane tunnel towards the bay platform A bird's eye view Note that the station building has somehow miraculously ended up away from the left side of the layout - this is just a printing error and in reality as per the plan it will be hard up against the left edge. Also note where the tracks become invisible - this is the boundary of the Park Lane tunnel as mentioned above.
  11. One thing that's interesting to me is that there are references to Park Lane Tunnel (as opposed to bridge) being filled in when the station was abandoned in 1890. One would have thought a steel girder bridge would have been a much simpler approach than a tunnel, but nevertheless. My gut feeling is that this appeared to the layman as a tunnel because it was a continuation of the retaining wall, with a brick arch and abutments, see here for example (though irrelevant for this discussion, this bridge is just up the road from me and has extra piers towards the viewpoint which would have carried the aborted LBSCR Ouse Valley branch to Uckfield) https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0302435,-0.1107915,3a,75y,212.48h,97.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4lia7zePZbVRuPG1z0qiOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 To keep a sense of decorum, but to satisfy @TJ52's historical research aspect - we note but will ignore for now the fact that the OS Maps show at least the headshunt of the gravel siding poking into the original site.)
  12. Indeed, I managed to snag the last sheet of 6mm ply they have, and though it is marine rather than birch ply it should do me well. This morning: This afternoon: In addition to the 175cm x 33cm main board and the 70cm x 25cm traverser board (not pictured), I have managed to squeeze three sides of a backscene too. There are diagonal stretchers, which I also forgot to lay out for the picture. While planning I realised that road level is about an inch higher than the baseboard surface, and so if i were to jigsaw out the whole road and incline behind the station and sit it on risers, it would significantly compromise the rigidity. Instead, I will build risers onto the baseboard surface and lay another strip of thin ply above that. While I was out in the garden, I also recieved delivery of my track from Wayne at Finetrax: The extra B6 and crossover for the throat will be stashed away for future use.
  13. Thanks ohn, I had no idea that the bizarre building you've pictured was the Red Star parcels office and the last stump of the GPO platform described by @Nearholmer
  14. I saw that too but didn't look - I was too scared he'd found something I missed but thankfully the sources that are there, are all there are. 05:35 shows the kink in Katharine Street itself - note the red brick versus the blue engineering brick in earlier shots of the retaining wall - where I'll be placing the GPO platform. I have paid a visit to my local wood merchant and should be returning with a good deal of material to start building the baseboards. I have decided in my infinite wisdom to make the scenic section a single board. I have access to a van in the vanishingly small proposition that I exhibit the layout, and if not it will save significantly on construction and permit a nice, unobstructed facade when plonked on the cupboards in my office.
  15. The "laquer" is most likely just oxide, it needs to be gleaming. The flux is used to stop the build-up of oxide while you're soldering and is non-negotiable. You need a very tight join indeed if you want capiliary action to fill those joints...
  • Create New...