Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Yes, if there are any left. And they're quite expensive. And, annoyingly, I don't get a discount!

 

For such a compact site, there's a helluvalotta track (1909 survey):

 

129490178_1909Survey.jpg.a37590413f9d4ac2add9e54f45ab0c83.jpg

  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

Yes, if there are any left. And they're quite expensive. And, annoyingly, I don't get a discount!

 

For such a compact site, there's a helluvalotta track (1909 survey):

 

129490178_1909Survey.jpg.a37590413f9d4ac2add9e54f45ab0c83.jpg

Don't forget you'd have to model this:

 

http://kemp-town-railway.yolasite.com/4-way-point.php

  • Like 4
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, brianusa said:

They sure crammed a lot in a small space, but no crossovers to release an engine?

      Brian.

 

6 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Don't forget you'd have to model this:

 

http://kemp-town-railway.yolasite.com/4-way-point.php

 

Yes, given that point construction is my own personal modelling nightmare ......

 

While there are a number of Edwardian locomotive portraits snapped at Kemp Town, most general views are from much more modern times on the basis that things get photographed extensively only when they are about to pass from sight forever.

 

I found 2-3 early views for sale as postcards and bought a couple last night.  This one might go someway to addressing Brian's point (no pun intended) and provides something else unpleasant to build ...

 

 s-l1600.jpg.e8d45a32a6919b73248285a6296a97c6.jpg

 

It shows the scene pre-1905 with loco-hauled stock and, so, is all the more interesting for that, given that the problem Brian identifies largely falls away once push-pull services are introduced.

 

Here it seems the coaches have been set back in order to enable the locomotive to use the points, which are now set for her to reverse onto the centre road.

 

Presumably she must reverse all the way into the tunnel mouth in order to run round the train.  

 

Below is a later view, in motor train days, which I deem to be likely to be post WW1, with the same track arrangement in place. 

Kemp-Town-Railway-Station-Photo-Lewes-Road-and.jpg.70732c52f3991ce4320fc6fb6d7b1cef.jpg

 

Choosing the Edwardian period would allow the layout to run both relatively short trains of Stroudley stock (five coaches) with IEG Terrers or Ds, the early 1905 push-pull with the 2-4-0T Terriers and trailer, and 0-6-0T umber Terriers and trailer,   In addition, there seem to be reasonable coal and goods facilities to justify goods traffic.  Perhaps we might see Es?

 

Thus, we solve the 'Ashburton Problem'; how to make a small prototype BLT with limited traffic interesting without introducing unprototypical trains. My preferred solution is to run a series of overlapping trains reflecting the evolving stock on the line over time.  The limitation is that stations tend to change at least as often as the stock that served them, so the span of years over which your parade of trains can appear can be limited by changes to track or facilities that may occur.

 

Kemp Town seems to suit the idea well because a single, short, span of years either side of 1905 would given you all the variety of change in trains that you needed.  This is because the change from conventional loco-hauled stock to motor trains and the change in livery from IEG/Goods Green to umber/black coincided it (as exemplified by the different appearance of the two 1905 Terrier 2-4-0T conversions):

 

- Pre-1905 passenger: IEG Terrier and IEG D with five Stroudley coaches

- 1905 passenger: IEG 2-4-0T Boxhill and Umber 2-4-0T No.81 with Balloon Trailer

- Post-1905 passenger: Umber 0-6-0T Terriers and Balloon Trailer

- E Tanks in Goods Green and in lined black for overlapping pre and post 1905 livery.

 

Thus, I reckon you could easily justify 8 tank engines, 2 passenger trains and as much variety in goods vehicles as you would want.    

 

Now, having a model of the main station buildings on the way in the post does not a model railway layout make - it's rather like saying I expect to be a lion tamer because I have my own hat that says 'Lion Tamer'*, but I have long wanted a slice of the Brighton, but never settled on a locale.  This purchase at least settles things (or will if the model arrives safely).

 

Rather like Barnstaple Town, the slice of the South Western I have decided upon, I can make incremental gains in that direction against the day I can contemplate a layout.  

 

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Edwardian
spelling and grammar
  • Like 7
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I would do what others have done before: condense the goods facilities to make a manageable-sized scene.

 

There were a hoofing lot of long sidings, yon which, in model terms, next door to nothing happened.

 

One model inspired by it is called East Brighton, but the area also has/had a third name that I can’t recall just now.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nearholmer said:

Personally, I would do what others have done before: condense the goods facilities to make a manageable-sized scene.

 

There were a hoofing lot of long sidings, yon which, in model terms, next door to nothing happened.

 

 

 

Yes, contemplating the map, I was rapidly coming to that conclusion .... 

 

1418663818_25inch1909survey-Copy.jpg.7cb0bb4b33d98aa42255472679edef95.jpg

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

From the Photo St Enodoc posted the turnout at the tunnel mouth it a 4 way tandam  (quad?)  rather than a true 4 way as the blade tips look staggered. If you were to reduce the number of sidings than could be reduced to a 3 way available commercially.

 

I agree with reducing the number of sidings. It produces a better model in my view.

 

Don 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

What a wonderful prototype to be modelling James!! and I don't say that just because it's got my name in it!!

 

Can't wait to see these 2 done with Rails Terriers! Number 81 regained her condensing pipes and kept her Stroudley numberplate when she became a 2-4-0 (The Umber lining was also slightly different to later umber engines, Boxhill's lining was also simplified compared to other IEG locos) I really must get around to finishing the lining on the other side of 81 and get some matt varnish of her!!

 

1657715144_2020-11-2608_25_20.jpg.57f40ad51f0d3ed3e05148bf686e509e.jpg

  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
27 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Yes, contemplating the map, I was rapidly coming to that conclusion .... 

 

1418663818_25inch1909survey-Copy.jpg.7cb0bb4b33d98aa42255472679edef95.jpg

 

Even with digital modelling where space is no object I'll condense down siding capacity.  Just recently I re-jigged a goods yard on my Hopewood tramway down to a smaller size because I wasn't using anything like all the sidings that were available.  I would say that if every second siding shown on the OS map was removed I don't think anyone looking at your layout would notice the difference even if they were a dyed in the wool LBSC enthusiast.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Donw said:

From the Photo St Enodoc posted the turnout at the tunnel mouth it a 4 way tandam  (quad?)  rather than a true 4 way as the blade tips look staggered. If you were to reduce the number of sidings than could be reduced to a 3 way available commercially.

 

I agree with reducing the number of sidings. It produces a better model in my view.

 

Don 

 

Thanks, Gary.  A couple of inspirational Terriers there.

 

Turning to Don and Kevin, yes the trackage needs pruning.

 

The more elegant, and the more, to my mind, modeller's solution, is to rationalise the track plan.

 

This, however, results in a model that is like Kemp Town, but not of Kemp Town.  Like the two modellers Kevin referred to, I'd have to name it something else. 

 

It struck me that, yes, as Don says, this would reduce the 4-way to a 3-way point at the entrance.

 

An alternative approach would be to model a slice of Kemp Town

 

Less tidy, with extraneous stubs of turnouts and truncated tracks, it would not appeal to many, but it would allow the layout to remain a model of Kemp Town, just not of all of it.

 

You'd work out what bits you actually want in order to operate it, and just confine the modelled scene to the area necessary to contain that.

 

So, A Slice of Kemp Town? Perhaps something like ....  

 

977429443_25inch1909survey-Copy-Copy.jpg.d9e0015ff38abe7435cf14c1e68f9ee5.jpg

  • Like 5
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BlueLightning said:

What a wonderful prototype to be modelling James!! and I don't say that just because it's got my name in it!!

 

Can't wait to see these 2 done with Rails Terriers! Number 81 regained her condensing pipes and kept her Stroudley numberplate when she became a 2-4-0 (The Umber lining was also slightly different to later umber engines, Boxhill's lining was also simplified compared to other IEG locos) I really must get around to finishing the lining on the other side of 81 and get some matt varnish of her!!

 

1657715144_2020-11-2608_25_20.jpg.57f40ad51f0d3ed3e05148bf686e509e.jpg

 

Re the simplified lining, I see that the panel lining has plain incurves at the corners and that the later, thinner, lettering is used on the tank side.

 

IIRC, there is a reference to an experimental green applied at the time of the conversion.  I think that's in Bradley's RCTS volume. I've never been convinced of this., assume the reference was to be taken to mean IE Green, but the re-lining does suggest the possibility that a new colour was also applied at the time of the conversion!

 

 

1287869485_Boxhill1905.jpg.2192df7307c1f24ac90352779a49feb6.jpg

 

 

15 minutes ago, Annie said:

Even with digital modelling where space is no object I'll condense down siding capacity.  Just recently I re-jigged a goods yard on my Hopewood tramway down to a smaller size because I wasn't using anything like all the sidings that were available.  I would say that if every second siding shown on the OS map was removed I don't think anyone looking at your layout would notice the difference even if they were a dyed in the wool LBSC enthusiast.

 

In many ways the best solution, but would I feel happy claiming it was 'Kemp Town'.

 

I have a tender conscience about such things.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

n many ways the best solution, but would I feel happy claiming it was 'Kemp Town'.

 

I have a tender conscience about such things.

A good point.  Perhaps 'Kempton Town', - or 'Kemp Town Road'.  If you call it 'Kemp Town Road' you wouldn't need to model any of the surrounding town buildings, - just a lot of fields and hedgerows instead.  Possibly that's a bit silly though........

  • Like 4
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

IIRC, there is a reference to an experimental green applied at the time of the conversion.  I think that's in Bradley's RCTS volume. I've never been convinced of this., assume the reference was to be taken to mean IE Green, but the re-lining does suggest the possibility that a new colour was also applied at the time of the conversion!

 

Like you I am not convinced of Boxhill receiving a green livery, I have heard people claim it was put into goods green, but the photo you posted clearly shows it is still in 2 separate colours which goods green was not, and the difference between the inside and outside of the panel looks the same as similar photos of locos in IEG, and in fact the loco behind it (I realise this is a terrible way of ascertaining colour in B/W photos) which to me makes me think it was most likely still in the same colours. When I finally get around to modelling Boxhill as a 2-4-0 I will be doing it in IEG

 

Gary

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I’d forgotten the “Was it actually still IEG?” controversy.

 

You seem to be heading for a layout that is a stick of Brighton rock, which is OK, because part of ‘Brighton Rock’ is set at the nearby race-course. 

Which gives me the cue I was waiting for, to say that the layout could then be called Kemp Town Races (doo-dah, doo-dah).

  • Like 1
  • Round of applause 4
  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, BlueLightning said:

 

Like you I am not convinced of Boxhill receiving a green livery, I have heard people claim it was put into goods green, but the photo you posted clearly shows it is still in 2 separate colours which goods green was not, and the difference between the inside and outside of the panel looks the same as similar photos of locos in IEG, and in fact the loco behind it (I realise this is a terrible way of ascertaining colour in B/W photos) which to me makes me think it was most likely still in the same colours. When I finally get around to modelling Boxhill as a 2-4-0 I will be doing it in IEG

 

Gary

 

I think that's right.  The most reasonable response to the information we have is to represent the 2-4-0T Boxhill with the slightly simplified lining (it's still obviously otherwise the same style of lining as IEG livery, not Goods Green lining) in IEG with Dark Olive borders.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A slice of Kemp Town ....

 

Let us assume that, having learnt at the knee of Iain Rice, we go for reasonably high baseboards, at least 4', probably more, from the ground; the masonry screen behind the platform shelter actually blocks off a reasonable length of the sidings.  This to some extent might lessen the visual impact of losing the bulk of the yard behind the platform.

 

The plan below allows three goods sidings to be represented in their entirety at the top/rear of the plan.  These would need to be operated from the top/rear of the layout, as the platform shelter screen is in the way to their front.  

 

The chosen slice also allows for two long sidings at the front.  Useful for spare stock. 

 

There are 4-5 turnouts that could either be omitted, for neatness, or represented as cosmetic turnouts to, or on, truncated lines, which terminate at the edge of the modelled scene. I prefer the idea of including them, thus causing the layout, at least to the extent modelled, to be true to Kemp Town. 

 

1642846460_Picture3-Copy.jpg.d2e26292ed7db892f6d38f81fb0cbbe3.jpg

 

We end up with a plan that harks back to an early school of thought; modelling only what lies within the line side fence.  A current example of this is the LNWR London Road

 

With my enjoyment of architectural modelling, constraining the scene to railway company property is not something I would generally expect to do, but it works for this location, as it would for Ventnor, which I think Kevin mentioned as a similar site to Kemp Town.  

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, here is the Kemp Town station building.

 

There are missing bits, like a chimney and pots and the guttering and downpipes, and the model has suffered damage in transit (rather than protect it, the vendor merely wedged it in the box, and the model has cracked badly in one place as a result.

 

It is also clearly unfinished.  The most significant missing element is the ground floor bay to the platform façade.  

 

The quality of the work is clear, however, most of the work is done for me and it will be an honour to restore and complete the work in due course. 

 

20201128_200835.jpg.d753ead81d0c687c54c37e9ef2d5b44b.jpg

 

jg_22_130.jpg.ed13ef6590299ac612f81e04de9f4d8e.jpgjg_22_136.jpg.f8067a017f0a61ea00f6dba68d524e7f.jpg 

 

20201128_200909.jpg.847abdf9936b403949ea39c9538d83c9.jpg

 

137748042_KempTown06.jpg.e839f5a9ad28fe17053d734d844bcfad.jpg1372155219_kemp_town5showinggroundfloorbay.jpg.5eeabe901579db9a89386b16544efe96.jpg

 

20201128_200952.jpg.ba00338b77e68d41c4df49b529f957af.jpg

 

 

 

 

  • Like 12
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

One drawback is that shunting moves - at least shunting the goods yard - involve the train practically disappearing off-stage into the tunnel, which for the viewer blurs the distinction between shunts and arrivals / departures. I started building a similar layout, a goods station based on Birmingham Central goods, that also has a tunnel at the throat, but there the approach through the tunnel was double track with all shunting done on the departure line, so there was less ambiguity - not least because I was the only person looking and I know what was going on!

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 26/11/2020 at 11:09, Schooner said:

 

'I'm gonna take my horse to Kemp Town Road, I'm gonna riiiiiiiiiide 'til I can't no more...'

 

LBSCR E3 class 165 BLATCHINGTON with a horse box

 

 

:) 

This is the first time I have seen 'Blatchington'. It interests me as I now live in East Blatchington, which is part of Seaford, in East Sussex. West Blatchington is part of Hove. The AA says they are 20+ miles apart, via their recommended route. Would anyone know which Blatchington this loco was named after?  Neither has its own station although both have stations nearby - Seaford and Bishopstone for us and Aldrington for West Blatchington.

 

The builder of this 2mm version has not attempted the 4-way point at the tunnel mouth.

 

Edited by phil_sutters
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I realised that; the fiddleyard/traverser or whatnot must provide the headsunt to the yard. That is a constraint imposed by the prototype, so cannot be helped. 

 

I suppose that if the same wagons that arrive then go off and onstage as they are distributed, it will look and feel like shunting the yard, rather than a succession of trains.  I'm probably too lazy to do more than short one daily goods in a fairly desultory way. 

 

At least I can run round passenger trains (almost) on stage.

 

As the 1905 2-4-0Ts were trialing elsewhere, I doubt they would have been seen at Kemp Town before 1906.  That year certainly saw not just one, but both of the petrol railcars tried on the branch. This is interesting, as the bodies were different do they were quite distinct.

 

1199268685_LBSCRPetrolRailcarNo.3.jpg.14902c92434f75bbe5b3378ebad4c84d.jpg

 

835263181_LBSCRPetrolRailcarNo.4.jpg.0cf9d15390b611a7f17faeb9d77d0ff3.jpg

 

Here No.4 appear to be at Kemp Town.

 

So, what with Stroudley sets, umber and cream balloon trailer motor trains and petrol railcars, the passenger side of the layout could be quite interesting.  Factor in a locomotive livery change in 1905, so locos will between them show four liveries, and I think there is quite enough variety for such a simple layout. 

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...