SE&CR Caterham 1899 (was 'what process can I use...')

[Lacathedrale]

Here's the OS map from 1897 sorting the track layout, you'll have to zoom in on the right hand side middle area: http://maps.nls.uk/view/103315897

[Harlequin]

I have the urge to actually draw the track plan in the style of an old map!

 

I'd like to retain the outer circuit if possible, as a mainly non-scenic fixture because I think this would make sense of the junction and allow more satisfying operation - more realistic distances and travel times. And, of course, a circuit allows you to set trains running safely without the need for computer control, while you do some shunting in a station.

 

Then tap into that circuit with standard modules at fixed offsets that can be removed and joined together away from the circuit. Just thinking aloud - it might not be possible.

 

Terminus module and fiddle yard module in opposition for end-to-end operation both when connected to the circuit and when connected back-to-back.

 

Hmmm...

 

(FYI: I've posted the last 1930s-style design, including original XAR file and a PDF version, in this thread: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126780-layout-design-in-illustration-software/page-2&do=findComment&comment=2955931)

Edited December 10, 2017 by Harlequin

[Lacathedrale]

Yes, I think you're right - each branch module can plug into another via a common track spacing (for example, so I could move the engine shed to my home office, or even exhibit Caterham by itself, or build Kenley as a test-bed for all the methods and technologies).

 

I do like the idea of a continuous run, and it actually does simplify things that way too: Of the 28' length, a minimum of 6' is required to cater for the 3' radius looping curves of the mainline at either end and the inner branch loop. Therefore, modules need to fit into a 22' space available on both the long edges.

• Fiddle yard (top right), is 8' 
• Purley's branch/down platforms are only modelled half length and bisect by the the backscene that hides the fiddle yard, the down platform could be in half relief to save space, or double track for more running - I make that another 8' or so.
• Scene divided by the footbridge to...
• Engine shed is 6' (it's 8' in reality, but I think some selective compression would be fine.
• <180 curve goes here scenic, valley scene with big girder bridge over Godstone Road>
• Kenley is 6' or so (bearing in mind the passing loop only needs to be 48" long) and has a really over-wrought brick footbridge dividing it from....
• <3' scenic section>
• Caterham is 10' to the catch point in reality, I could probably compress to 8' to fit into the standardised sizings
• Mainline appears from behind the Caterham backscene (possibly representing something for Norwood Jct or South Croydon)

 

The main line was actually an LB&SCR concern, though the SE&CR had running rights over it to both Caterham and our non-modelled Tattenham Corner branch. I think that might be something nice though, as LB&SCR was my 'first love', so being able to make a Gladstone or Baltic would be really nice.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Lacathedrale

[Harlequin]

How about this - just considering modular baseboards that can be joined together...

 

 

The curved ends and the outer circuit are fixed, non-scenic. The curves at the ends are little bit contrived to get everything to join up but I think they could be made to work cleanly.

 

I hope the stations will fit on the boards because it's amazing that I managed to fit all this in and in such a way that it can be rejoined in completely different permutations...

 

I think I need to lie down for a bit!

 

Edit: Sorry Lacathedrale, we cross-posted.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Harlequin

[Lacathedrale]

Wow, that's beautiful and basically exactly what I was thinking. My garage is 18' x 12', so taking that same 3' minimum radius I could unfold the plan around three walls if the loft became an issue in future. Being extra sneaky, I if I could get Caterham itself into a svelte 8' instead of the 1:76 scale 10' then I could even have it for display in my garden shed, or with a small sector plate fiddle yard in my home office. I'm going to do some messing around with Templot and see what comes out.

[Lacathedrale]

Here's a 9' x 2'6" version of Caterham 1895, I have not modelled the loco spur/pocket whose function is unclear to allow me to bring the last turnout closer in, but is otherwise accurate to prototype:

 

 

With the correct angle out on the station approach and a little bit of compression I've got it down to 8', but I think it benefits from the spaciousness so I'm somewhat on the fence. It seems ridicolous to be miserley with a few inches here and there on a layout with a 60' + total run, but my home office is 10' 6" long so the idea of being able to fit it there with a  2'6" sector plate traverser 'for fun'.

 

On the bright side, the more I read about this the more excited I become with the idea of the SE&CR in general: it has a wonderful contrast of super-urban lines (like those serving London Bridge, Bricklayers Arms, etc.) but also very bucolic (like Caterham, Hawkhurst) and idiosyncratic (Crystal palace high-level, Greenwick Park Terminus - both extremely compressed passenger terminii). I think it's almost a requirement to get myself a H-class though, they're in basically every single photograph I see!

[Harlequin]

That looks pleasingly simple. You're right about compression vs. a sense of space - that's always one of the biggest challenges. Probably best not to compromise the length at this stage, I would say.

 

(In my drawing Caterham has baseboards ~11ft long simply because it fits in the gap between two of your roof trusses but of course it doesn't have to be that long and shortening it would allow a longer fiddle yard. On the other hand 11ft would allow a leisurely scenic entry to the station.)

 

If we could tweak it to fit on 2ft wide baseboards that would make it easier to move and easier to fit into the loft (while you can stand upright beside it!). I sometimes wonder about the accuracy of the older maps - for example, why three tracks beside the platform??? Wouldn't the escape crossover just have connected directly to the outer track? (I think it did later on.) And on the 1895/7 map of Kenley there seems to be some track parallel to the branch line, offset from the platform and not connected to it at all.

 

BTW: The road to the south of the station with the hotel and post office facing up the high street looks ripe for a little scenic bolt-on section! (Or maybe make room for it on the Caterham boards - it would be a great visual full stop...)

 

Coincidentally, I took some shots of the H class that was at Warley this year -  they get everywhere!:

Edited December 11, 2017 by Harlequin

[Harlequin]

Here's how Caterham could fit onto the 2ft * ~11ft boards of my drawing:

 

• Reduced the three platform tracks to two to make a bit more room.
• Change curvature slightly so that track is perpendicular to board end and sidings parallel to edges (shame, but makes best use of limited space).
• I left space at the end for "station avenue" and some low-relief buildings.
• Added a trap point before the top goods line joins the running line - hinted at in the maps.
• Points kept clear of the board joint.

(I tried to include the loco "headspur" because it would be a distinctive feature but I couldn't fit it in either!)

 

Looking at it, I think the runaround should be longer...

Edited December 11, 2017 by Harlequin

[Harlequin]

Update: I think this is more topologically correct.

 

I think when the station was first built the goods feeder line just fed the bottom of the three sidings. The other sidings were added later and I reckon that the reason why siding 3 comes so close to the others is because there's a crossover there so that all three sidings are connected to the goods feeder line, which can be used as a headshunt.

 

I also managed to include the loco "headspur" and I suspect the reason for that was so that a loco could access the goods yard without interfering with passenger traffic.

 

I'd better stop fiddling and do some work!

 

[Lacathedrale]

EDIT: We crossposted, that looks lovely. Is the loco spur on a single slip? This is certainly going to give my track-laying skills a workout!

 

I couldn't get the scaling of the image perfect so I wonder if I'm just a bit under-scale on the OS-grid map - My reckoning is that the platform was about four hundred and fifty feet long in real life and the geometry is such that at least the final 60' must be after the crossover (in order that the locos used by the SECR could actually run around) which looks about right on your plan too. It seems odd to be so small, but this is a few short years before it was fully relaid with platforms double the length, each double tracked with scissor crossovers/etc. so maybe this limitation was starting to be felt even with the 27' coaches (as opposed to the stagecoach 4 wheelers that would have been there in the 1850's when it was laid). On the bright side, I'm going to work on the assumption that four or five 27' coaches was about the biggest train this branch would have seen so as long as I've got about 2' of clearance in the passing loop that should be fine, and if not then the station pilot will have some work to do.

 

As for the third siding, I'm going to assume it's a carriage siding - if you think that the big engine shed in Purley didn't exist back then, they'd need somewhere to store the loco and coaches. I'm happy to lose it as per your design. I wonder what the end loading dock there would have been for?

 

Unfortunately, this is the only photograph I can see, taken from Station Avenue:

 

 

The more I think about the space and compression the more I think you're right, it needs that space to breathe. If I want something in my home office I can always have the Purley shed or Kenley modules there, right?

Edited December 11, 2017 by Lacathedrale

[Lacathedrale]

Here's a c1850's shot looking across the platforms (you can see the doorway arch in the photograph in my previous post, in the building in the middle of this engraving, with a tiny loco behind it. It shows the steep hillside which will form the backscene of the Caterham modules:

 

 

 

That big building to the left of the station still existed when this photo was taken, but the original station building (next to where the bus is parked) had been rebuilt in the SE&CR style:

Edited December 11, 2017 by Lacathedrale

[Harlequin]

Great images! I guess the large half-timbered building on the other side of station avenue is what is shown on the 1897 map as, "Hotel". It would be great fun to model the face of that building (although a little bit of artistic license would be needed to slide it along the road and onto the baseboard)!

 

I think that the platform would be about 1.7m in the model or 425ft long - close to your estimate. I think you can comfortably fit eight 27ft coaches against the platform and still run around them. (You'll see them the next time I post an image.)

 

I imagined both crossings in the goods yard would be double slips but single slips might be OK - it depends on the usage.

 

An earlier map shows that there was a trap point on the exit of the goods feeder line but I can't find any concrete evidence for the crossover and slip between the goods lines.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Harlequin

[Lacathedrale]

I think you could fit that many against the platform face, but the turnouts and runaround at both ends of the platform will take a huge portion of that. I'm imaging a longer train (either fire stone empties for the local quarry output, or maybe some kind of seasonal special) will have the pilot peel coaches back from the loco in order that it can to get into the passing loop. 

 

I'm excited to see your next development - the catch point makes absolute sense. Part of me was relieved that with only six turnouts it would be financially viable to go with the Peco OO Bullhead if it came to it, but definitely not with double slips, I'm going to post in the hand-laid track subforum to make sure I'm not biting off more than I can chew by 'agreeing' to that.

[Harlequin]

I found an older station plan (1869) that strongly suggests the three goods sidings did come together in the station yard.

 

I don't think these older maps can be trusted to show station topology accurately but it's a hint that we're on the right track. (Haha! I made an awful railway joke, just like Mr. Pooter! I suppose the 1890's was his era, after all...)

 

I tweaked the trackplan slightly last night:

• Added some scenics and buildings. (The photo of the station building from station avenue was really useful.)
• Tweaked run around loop to flow better.
• Placed some 27ft carriages. (They look small but 27ft @ 4mm:1ft == 108mm plus spacing for couplings.)
• Altered loco shed and spur to be better aligned and give a more tapering platform.
• Showed the board join line.

I've also shown a Peco Streamline large radius point for scale. We could try to create a trackplan using Peco geometry but I fear it wouldn't be as flowing as the current one.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Harlequin

[Lacathedrale]

Lovely, it just gets better and better. What is the building top-right? I'd kill to know what the huge building is there on your 1869 plan (and evidenced on the 1895 one) - the 1923 plan shows it as 'coal wharf'.  At Kenley there was a long siding for the water works (coal) and AFAIK the intended freight from Caterham was firestone, but maybe as that never materialised it too was some larger coaling area, possibly for transloading to villages further out that it wasn't financially viable for the station to reach?

 

In your 1869 plan there's no runaround at all in the platform road (well, in theory) which is maybe why there was a pilot loco shed and the runaround in the goods area? Obviously the loco shed wasn't used much by the turn of the century and was converted to a goods shed, maybe that occured when the runaround on the main (and the subsequent introduction of tank engines) was built?

 

The count of the carriages looks very good, in that end-on view you can count quite a few in the platform road so my initial view of 4-5 was a bit low, it seems you've really nailed it. I'm a little worried about trying to hand lay double slips though, I'll be honest!

[Harlequin]

The building top right is on the 1895-7 plan. You can see it on old-maps.co.uk but not on the nls website (which has a horrible UI, IMHO).

 

And looking at it again, you're quite right - it is part of, or connected to, that huge "building" on the 1869 plan. You can also see it on the 1895-7 when you know what to look for.

 

It has access from station avenue and seems to be a yard, maybe with coal staithes in the middle and surrounded by open-fronted sheds on three sides???

 

It might be possible to model the edge of it if we squeeze the tracks together a bit more. We could widen the baseboard to fit it in but that has all sorts of other consequences...

 

P.S. I'll see if I can make a decent version of the track plan using standard Peco parts.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Harlequin

[Harlequin]

Here's the station track plan with Peco Streamline parts overlaid on top in red.

 

It uses two double slips and one large Y. All the rest of the points are large radius so can be bullhead. Lots of people seem to be combining Code 75 OO/HO parts with bullhead parts while they wait for Peco to make bullhead equivalents, which they will then drop in (somehow).

 

What do you think? (To be honest, it's better than I thought it would be!)

 

[Lacathedrale]

Wow, that's surprisingly accurate given the limited geometries available, thank you.

 

I think it basically seals the deal for Caterham in general - the layout, the era, the dimensions. Operationally it seems 4 passenger trains per day was the default, with what I imagine was a daily goods train. I'm going to proto-freelance the idea of either a 'bulk' coal train or firestone train to that outside siding - and that should do it! 

 

Do you have any interest at all in tackling the Purley shed?

 

All the best,

[Harlequin]

Wow, that's surprisingly accurate given the limited geometries available, thank you.

 

I think it basically seals the deal for Caterham in general - the layout, the era, the dimensions. Operationally it seems 4 passenger trains per day was the default, with what I imagine was a daily goods train. I'm going to proto-freelance the idea of either a 'bulk' coal train or firestone train to that outside siding - and that should do it! 

 

Do you have any interest at all in tackling the Purley shed?

 

All the best,

 

I found a photo that shows the yard next to the top siding at Caterham:

 

The photo is clearly later than 1897 but just above the "Ca" of Caterham you can still see the same open yard we see on the older maps with buildings either side. The roofs are very steep with tall stone chimneys, strongly suggesting they were part of the original station design.

 

And this one of the original station building with it's small platform canopy:

 

Both photos are from www.thecaterhamrailway.co.uk, created by someone who was planning to build an N-gauge model.

 

 

In principle, yes, I'll have a go at Purley shed but it's not shown on the 1897 map I've been looking at. So does it fit with the single track Caterham branch? Or was it built later when the line was doubled?

[Lacathedrale]

Oh lovely pictures. I guess that building adjoining the left of the station building must be the small square building in your plan? It doesn't look like it's the engine shed, being so stumpy?

 

I've got the results of my £7.50 to the Surrey Historical Society, a rather underwhelming Purley Junction plan from 1897. The Purley shed would be off the page a little further down the mainline and was completed in 1898 so wouldn't be on this plan anyway (except maybe as a building site): 

 

 

Interestingly it looks like the goods yard is half quarry at this point, which would explain why building merchants were in high evidence in the 1920's plan, and why even now it's a rail connected aggregate loading point. The single facing siding on the branch-side of the island platform does make it slightly easier from an operational point of view, but has made the 'marshalling' aspect a little moot.

[Harlequin]

Here's the same map from old-maps.co.uk, scrolled a little further south-west along the Brighton line:

 

[Lacathedrale]

Damn, I couldn't seem to find it - otherwise I wouldn't have spent the money!  It's very interesting how there is basically no goods yard at Purley Jct. other than those two rear-facing sidings into what became the goods yard and the spur into the quarry. The station did close down shortly after opening due to a lack of traffic and was only reopened when the Caterham Branch finally stopped being rail-locked by competing interests, so maybe it hadn't had time yet to gain enough steam (pun!) to warrant even a small goods yard!

 

My house is where the 'F' is in Foxley in that photo  

[Harlequin]

To make the layout work better with more goods traffic movements, you could apply some artistic license and add more sidings to Purley.

 

There's clearly space on the 1897 map, almost as if the land had been cleared ready for more sidings, and it seems that Purley was changing fast around that time. In fact there are more sidings extending out of the north and south ends of what later became the goods yard. These would require a huge long baseboard to model so we could say that sidings in a more conventional yard on a more compact baseboard represent those...

 

The neighbouring quarry has lines that connect to the main line a bit further north so you could apply modellers license and say that the quarry was actually accessed from Purley station. A line crossing Warren road into the quarry would be a nice scenic feature.

 

Clutching at straws? Can we fit all this onto the baseboard?

 

---

 

A house in the grounds of the local aristocracy - very posh! ;-)

 

BTW: If you look at the engraving you posted above, the two simple buildings in front of the station building are the same two buildings that I pointed out in the brown photo I posted above. (Compare the gable ends!) They are part of the original goods "yard" and the wall between them with the gateway in the middle is the access from station avenue.

 

Edit: I've just worked out a much smoother line into that top goods siding at Caterham using Streamline points. Huge improvement! I'll post it later.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Harlequin

[Harlequin]

Update:

 

 

• Revised station building roof.
• Added canopy.
• Added loading stage near station building.
• Peco Streamline geometry and colour-coded points.
• Straightened out the long goods feeder line - much more like the prototype now.
• The yard beside the top siding was "Kilby's livery stable". I've pieced it together as best I can from photos and maps. (Would need 150mm more baseboard width.)
• Moved the board joint to avoid a set of points.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I would be interested to see what lies to the north-east of that map. On the face of it, no direct connection from the main line to the branch.

 

But is the map correctly labelled? Prior to the Quarry Lines being opened and four tracks from Windmill Jct down to Three Bridges, the line from Redhill was, I think, SECR with LBSC running powers.

 

Just out of local interest, is your house, sited on the F of Foxley, a fairly recent build. And is Foxley itself still standing? It always seemed an amazingly big house with a large plot by comparison with the 1920s houses around it, although they too are big by modern standards. I know someone who lived there back in the 70s.