Plan critique required - LBSC, early 1914

[dseagull]

After approximately five years in the dreaming, armchair modelling and false starts, I am now finally in a position where I can begin work on a new layout. Baby Hannah has been evicted (to share with her sister ), leaving a cot sized gap against the wall. I plan to install brackets for storage, and build a portable layout which can be brought downstairs to work on, so we are looking at a foamboard baseboard, inspired by Chris Nevard's superb Catcott Burtle . This is already in stock - Hobbycraft selling 4 A1 size sheets for a tenner certainly helped!

 

The layout is set in the 1912-Spring 1914 period, on a twice proposed but never built scheme in the beautiful Cuckmere Valley in East Sussex. In real life, the branch from Lewes to Seaford was mooted to be extended, joining what is now the East Coastway (Eastbourne-London) line at Willingdon, near Polegate, however this would never take place. There was though a Narrow Gauge line relating to shingle extraction , albeit later than my planned period. In my reality, this was standard gauge, with the resulting shingle used for, amongst other things, ballast across the LBSC network (again, a slight alteration of reality - that came from the Crumbles in nearby Eastbourne). 

 

Looking at a screenshot from Google Maps (with my edits), I would suggest a line from Seaford through the valley seems to fit what would be the easiest route with the line following the contours of the land, and also allowing for a station at the only real population centre of note (Alfriston). Litlington, with its White Horse carved into the hillside, would have probably not have merited a station in reality, although if the Tea Gardens, which still serve today, were opened earlier than the 1920's then perhaps it could have become a tourist destination for intrepid Edwardians. 

 

 

In the below plan, to the left is the line to Seaford, with the 'shingle siding' diverging somewhere beyond the level crossing, whilst to the right, the line heads through to Alfriston before joining the main line. From the left, the simple track plan crosses over the River Cuckmere before running into the station. The single goods siding in the station yard is joined by one opposite, which serves a Cattle (or perhaps more likely in this part of the world, Sheep!) dock, whilst the runaround for the Goods Yard is completed offstage. The road crosses the river and buildings on the level, before slightly rising up, over the Downs towards Seaford, with a small lane crossing over the railway and then rising up to meet it. The village itself is mostly strung out along the road. Aside from the shingle trains which pass through the station on their way to Eastbourne and the north (or running round for Seaford and onwards to Newhaven/Brighton), goods traffic would mostly be agricultural goods out, with inbound coal for the village, handled by a daily pick-up goods. Passenger services would be locals from Seaford-Eastbourne (E4, Terrier), with something bigger for non stopping Eastbourne-Newhaven direct trains. Twice weekly Seaford-Hailsham trains conveying both passengers and animals for the livestock market would also be possible.

 

For buildings, I have taken inspiration from those which are there in reality - the shop is long gone, however a picture survives; 

 

Cottage/Shop inspiration; https://www.francisfrith.com/litlington/litlington-the-village-c1960_l480010

 

Whilst the 1950's built village hall was designed very sympathetically with use of local flint to blend in - Google Maps link which should point to it! , and, in the plan below, becomes a school, inspired by the West Stoke Village Hall in West Sussex, built from similar materials and originally for that purpose. The station building on the plan is the right dimensions for one of the L-Cuts kits (LC-4), but I think will instead be scratchbuilt. 

 

Would be interested to hear any thoughts, before I start cutting foamboard! My interests are more scenic than operational, so the limited operational scope of the plan is acknowledged!

 

 

[BlueLightning]

Hi Stu,

 

Good to see the Cuckmere Valley Railway plans coming back to life!!

 

The plan looks good, not sure the LBSC would have used a goods shed of that size on a branch like this though, more likely a small wooden shed next to the track, similar to what I used on Oak Hill. I can't remember what kit I used, but I do have some drawings of an LBSC wooden goods shed if you fancy scratch building.

 

Gary

[Edwardian]

I like it.  I cannot say how consistent with Brighton practice this arrangement would be. 

 

The platform face looks to be 26" maximum.  That would allow 5 1870s Stroudley 4-wheelers.  Any train that would warrant an E4 or larger would be too long, so might be assumed not to stop at Litlington, which might anyway not be a place that would warrant much more than a halt, based on your description.

 

At your period, the 'stoppers' might be represented by a Terrier and balloon trailer motor train.  Peak times (if the line has these!) and market days, you might vary that with a train of 4-wheelers. 

 

I think the main pressure is the platform length, which is very short for anything other than a halt.  A better visual balance is achieved when trains do not occupy the full platform length all the time, and some extra length would help here, but also provide for the rarer longer trains to stop. If it were me, I'd be tempted to axe the level crossing in favour a grabbing a few more inches to bring the length up to at least 2'6". 

 

I would suggest that the station building and goods shed ought to be suitably modest.  Personally I would avoid a goods shed over the tracks for that reason.  A small lock up shed on a short wooden platform might be more in keeping. - as I write I see that Gary has made the same point.

 

Chris Nevard produced an N Gauge micro in Model Rail recently.  All very beautiful, but the station building might be thought a little too large and well appointed for its tiny station, and the signal box was way too big.  The size of a box is determined by the number of levers in a frame required at the site.  What Mr Nevard thought needed that many levers was unclear. 

 

Less is more when a layout is this small. 

 

For this sort of line, inspiration might perhaps be gleaned from something like the Dyke. 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: A further point re the station/goods yard.  This would have been laid out to allow horse-drawn vehicles to turn.  While some compromise may be necessary, there should ideally be enough width to suggest that turning a dray would be possible.  For horse traffic on the passenger side, an on and out arrangement might be an alternative.

 

These are all complications of a manned station with goods facilities.

 

 

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Edwardian

[phil_sutters]

While taking a line south from the line between Berwick and Polegate would be more or less on the level, making an extension from Seaford station eastwards would involve crossing the part of the South Downs that ends at Seaford Head. The A259 takes the easiest route into the Cuckmere valley, dropping from 47 metres to 5 metres in a kilometre - an average of 1 in 25 - steeper in the middle. Your route crossing the Downs south of the Alfriston road would have to climb to at least 60 or 70 metres from Seaford station, near sea-level and that is the easy bit. The drop into the Cuckmere valley is very steep indeed. On the line you are showing you drop from 70 metres to sea/river level in 600 metres.  High & Over is called that for a reason! You can see where the ridge of the Downs lie on your map. They are the darker green shades. An OS map with contour lines will show what your navvies would have to contend with in more detail. For those who don't know the area I will add some photos.

I don't know what the pre-grouping farming practices were, but there are a fair number of cows up and down the valley now.

 

[Compound2632]

The Metcalfe goods shed has to my eyes Midland Railway written all over it. In a small space, making sure your structures shout Brighton will be key to giving a sense of place. 

[dseagull]

Thanks all for the interesting and useful comments. 

 

A few things; Firstly, the goods shed, if built, would be a wooden one - using the Metcalfe one on the plan was just a placeholder to ensure there was enough space. Same for the signal box, which wouldn't be a Wills farmhouse! 

 

With regard to the geography, the planned route is actually available to view at The Keep, the local archives office - http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/eec9d0c1-7734-4afd-98fb-9cea8bc9603d . Perhaps I should get myself down there to see exactly where the line was intended to go!

 

I do like the idea of a 'Dyke-esq' station building. Certainly don't want anything too big. Another possibility is building the layout as a former independent/light railway which has recently been taken over/absorbed?

 

My reasons for the 1912-14 time period were relating to availability of stock. I have spent a few happy evenings of late building a couple of Cambrian LBSC opens (one with sheet rail, one without), as well as a SECR Van (which is about 5 years too late unfortunately!). Motive power wise, this would allow for the E4, Terrier, H1/H2 and E1, which are either available or planned within the next couple of years. It would also (hence adding the word 'early' to 1914) allow for a couple of 'one day' locos in a Gladstone or the very elegant G Class single (last one withdrawn May 1914), both of which are available as kits for when I have the money/time/ability (delete as applicable) to make a decent stab at them. Coaches are a little more challenging, but the Ratio Midland coaches can be adapted and I also have some old Railway Modellers with instructions on converting Triang Clerestory stock. If I went down the 'adopted light' route then the repainted Ratio 4 wheelers are a cliché which I am willing to put up with, at least short term (I also have two of these, with three links and aftermarket buffers built a few years back and painted in what can best be described as 'Municipal lamppost green' from a previous layout). 

 

I intend to go down the 'cameo' route, so am limited on size. Width could perhaps be increased a little, however, as the Screwfix brackets I have my eye on come out 500mm , but I am conscious I will need to be able to safely maneuver the layout up and down stairs, as well as perhaps in and out of the car should things go as well as I hope. I did originally consider it as a P4 test piece, but I'm not sure a single slip is within the capabilities of someone who took the best part of an hour to solder two feeds to track not that long ago! 

 

[Nearholmer]

Phil beat me to it, but I was going to say that your route would have been either mega-expensive to build, or mega-expensive to operate (with steam traction).

 

The CVR was projected as a Light Railway, which suggests very modest infrastructure, down the CV, then up the Eastbourne side, with a rather "interesting" (= faintly mad) scheme to tunnel through from near East Dean to Birling Gap, which was to be developed as a sort of resort.

 

The climb out of the CV towards East Dean would have been pretty steep (look where the blue bus is in Phil's picture of the A259 ...... there is a slightly less steep defile behind that ridge, but not much less steep), and I've always thought that the whole idea would have been far more practical as an electric railway, think Manx Electric or Kinver Light, for instance, than a steam one, but haven't delved deep enough to understand if that was the intent. There is a fair bit about it in various public records offices, though, if you do want to delve.

 

Anyway, back to your station ....... a LR goods shed would more likely be a wood or corrugated iron erection, and more likely not to have had the railway running through it.

 

Think cheap, think concrete and corrugated iron, think light-footed motive power.

 

Just the sort of railway to get itself into a financial mess within five minutes of opening, and to turn over operations to Big Brother in return for 5% of the receipts. An ideal retirement home for Terriers being displaced by the ELL and SLL electrifications.

 

Ratio GWR 4-wheelers were still brand new to the GWR at your date, so let your imagination run riot with whatever else the CVLR originally bought, and which has now been inherited by the LBSCR. A couple of ex Barnum & Bailey Circus cars? Or some Hurst Nelsons that are so flimsy that Balloon trailers are being drafted-in already? Could the LBSCR petrol railcars have come here rather than gone to the electrification department as OLE maintenance vehicles?

 

Unless, perhaps, you assume that Birling Gap really did take off and become a popular resort, justifying big trains ....... bit unlikely though!

 

Very rough squiggle on topo map below shows very roughly the originally planned route, which was to start at Berwick, with the tunnel being through the ridge at East Dean.

 

I've been not building a model of the CVLR since about 1968, so good luck with your model, which I hope makes more rapid progress than mine!

 

Kevin

 

PS: And to think, I used to cycle that road up out of the valley and onto the High and Over, and up to Devil's Dyke, just for fun ..........

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Nearholmer]

Looking at it, the "base elevation" of the line in the valley would have been c20ft, to get off the flood-plain, but avoid too much earthwork, possibly even lower, and to keep the tunnel at East Dean reasonably short that might have been at, say, 160ft, a change of elevation of 140ft in about 1.75 miles, which gives a gradient of 1:66, which actually isn't too bad at all by LR standards.

 

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Nearholmer
Further surveying!

[Edwardian]

Between 1906 and 1912, all the surviving Terriers, save a couple reserved as works shunters, were fitted for motor train work.

[Nearholmer]

And, here is Birling Gap, the place that never became a resort. 1930s i’d guess, but it might be 1950s.

 

The red squiggle shows roughly where the coastline is now, the first three or four cottages having fallen into the sea.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Nearholmer]

Ah, but, Edwardian, maybe two of those that were flogged-off went direct to the CVLR, as per the KESR, so got no motor gear. 

 

Who knows, maybe even the LBSCR steam railcars were tried on this line?

 

And, were the two secondhand Terriers its initial motive power, or did it have something else first, again as per KESR?

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Nearholmer

[dseagull]

Thanks, that is very useful. The geography/geology would certainly be challenging. The original source (accepting that my edited map was way out!) for the Seaford-Willingdon (Should have been Wilmington, am getting my W's muddled!) line was http://www.semgonline.com/RlyMag/FromLewesToNewhavenAndSeaford.pdf (Last sentence on Page 4)

 

I still like the idea of running through trains loaded with shingle - the narrow gauge line which gave me the idea only ran from the beach to the main road at Exceat (see https://maps.nls.uk/view/95752663#zoom=5&lat=6717&lon=3118&layers=BT ) but perhaps I should cut my ambitions back to a 'twig' to Alfriston? (where the money run out when someone looked at a map and realised how much effort for little return an extension to Seaford would be) - Originally, the 'grand plan' was to adapt the Iain Rice plan for 'Clun' (Finescale in Small Spaces) for Alfriston as the next layout in the series, but short of a lottery win I can't see us having the space for two for many years!

 

 

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by dseagull

[Nearholmer]

Looking in the London Gazette at the original 1886 Act, I think that the original plan was:

 

- to clamber up from Eastbourne to East Dean;

 

- use the spur valley on the East of the Cuckmere (the one I've shown on the LR route) to get down to the Cuckmere Valley;

 

-  go up the spur valley on the west of the Cuckmere, then cross the ridge NW of the High & Over in tunnel; and,

 

- come down into Newhaven and Seaford by way of another spur valley and a junction with the LBSCR at East Blatchington (i.e. near The Tide Mills);

 

A very circuitous route through virtually unpopulated country, but avoiding the scarp face of the High & Over.

 

This then seems to have been amended in 1888, to cut out the East Dean bit, and come down the CV from a junction with the LBSCR somewhere between Berwick and Polegate.

 

The 1891/2 Act seems to be a throwing in of the towel, abandoning the route and repealing previous Acts, after a load of wrangling with property owners about damage to their interests.

 

I do know that the key reason the CV never got a railway, or defaced by cement works, was that the landowner was opposed to such things........ good job, really, because it has been preserved as a delightful spot as a result!

 

Edited March 1, 2019 by Nearholmer

[dseagull]

Here's a Goods lockup I scratchbuilt for a previous incarnation (which didn't get very far). Something like this more suitable?

Edited March 1, 2019 by dseagull

[dseagull]

V2 plan; Added an extra inch to the depth.

 

[phil_sutters]

5 hours ago, dseagull said:

Here's a Goods lockup I scratchbuilt for a previous incarnation (which didn't get very far). Something like this more suitable?

You could put a pitched roof and brick gable ends on to get something like this on Burgess Hill station.

[BlueLightning]

8 hours ago, dseagull said:

Here's a Goods lockup I scratchbuilt for a previous incarnation (which didn't get very far). Something like this more suitable?

 

That looks very similar to the one I have drawings of The key difference being the one I have drawings of has hinged doors, not a sliding door.

 

I think the one you have will look good on the layout!

 

Gary

[Nearholmer]

That 'lockup' is much more the sort of thing for a LR.

 

I'm 99% sure that there is a LBSCR preserved at Isfield station - you can see it in pre-preservation days here http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/i/isfield/index7.shtml and here http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/i/isfield/index6.shtml . The LBSCR had a campaign of building these, but I can't remember off-hand when.

 

The alternative to a LBSCR one is to assume that it was built by the CVLR, before the LBSCR took over, which gives complete scope for stealing ideas from elsewhere. Blythburgh on the Southwold Railway had some nice sheds, for instance, one of which would fit your location, scroll down on this page to see http://blythburgh.onesuffolk.net/history/.

 

Or, you could go heavily Colonel Stephens and have a circular one made from corrugated iron!

 

That having been said, there were a lot of LR, and other minor stations, with no goods shed at all (The Dyke being one), presumably because the volume of things handled that needed protection from theft and weather was small enough that they could be tucked away in the booking office, or because a tired-old covered wagon was co-opted into use as a store (Bembridge, IoW, IIRC).

[Nearholmer]

And, at peril of thread-jacking, which others here will tell you I have a bad habit of doing when it comes to drawing maps of railways that were never built, a very rough map showing how I've come to imagine the CVLR, and where I would situate a layout ..... somewhere just north of Except Bridge, with the "beach" collecting line carrying on down to the Haven, along the course of the later EST&T narrow-gauge line.

 

The pumping station that I've marked is very important to the history,  https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3755081, because it was getting coal to that which provided the pretext to the LR, although I suspect that property development at Birling Gap was also in the minds of the promoters from the outset.

 

the rail tunnel idea was possibly a development of the necessary water pipe tunnel https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3755210

 

 

Edited March 1, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Gareth Collier]

12 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

And, here is Birling Gap, the place that never became a resort. 1930s i’d guess, but it might be 1950s.

 

The red squiggle shows roughly where the coastline is now, the first three or four cottages having fallen into the sea.

Trying to avoid a thread hijack but erosion has been far worse than the red line!

[Nearholmer]

Oh, my gosh!

 

 

 

[Edwardian]

Crumbs. 

 

Well, you could plan a station that might disappear before Beeching could get at it!

 

Of course, thankfully after 29 March there will be no more waves coming from abroad to worry about.

 

I'd cite King Canute as a great English hero here, except he wasn't English, which just shows what is possible with a Norway Plus arrangement.  Plus Denmark, IIRC.  

[phil_sutters]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

Crumbs. 

 

Well, you could plan a station that might disappear before Beeching could get at it!

 

Of course, thankfully after 29 March there will be no more waves ? coming from abroad to worry about.

 

I'd cite King Canute as a great English hero here, except he wasn't English, which just shows what is possible with a Norway Plus arrangement.  Plus Denmark, IIRC.  

Be aware that the Environment Agency have been looking at proposals that the shingle bank at Cuckmere Haven will not be artificially reformed and that potentially the valley could be flooded up to the A259 crossing. Seaford's shingle bank defences are rebuilt twice a year with huge caterpillar shovels, dumper trucks and bulldozers shifting shingle from the ends to the middle of the beach. It could be that Cuckmere's four cottages don't warrant the expense. 

This is the area that could be inundated. The cottages can just be seen to the right of the sea on the horizon. The narrow gauge shingle extraction railway, I believe, followed the path shown at the bottom of the picture.

Edited March 1, 2019 by phil_sutters

[Nick Holliday]

Getting back to the track plan and facilities, I can only echo others remarks that the timber lock up shed is the way to go, and as far as I recell, all of them were mono-pitched, like your model.

As a bit of inspiration, Chris Nevard's photos of my Fittleworth layout may be of interest, as well as an original view. (His copyright)

A simple track plan, but, unusually, the station only opened in 1889, many years after the bracnh to Midhurst opened.

And, to provide an unusual variation, you might consider Rudgwick, another small station, platforms only 260 feet long - 3' 6" in 4mm.  What makes it different is that the main line veers away from the platform, with the access to the goods yard running straight ahead. (Note the shiny rails) That would confuse viewers!

Photo from the Rudgwick Ptreservation Society website

Oddly, there is no run-round loop for the yard, so presumably shunting only took place by south bound trains. The wagon turntable with long sidings was unusual, and perhaps there was a strong horse available to move wagons.

If you still want your cattle dock on the other side of the line, perhaps you could take a lead from within the goods yard and cross the main line with a diamond, removing the need for the single slip.

 

Note that with both stations, and normal elsewhere, the signal box is located adjacent to the running line, and not within the goods yard.  At Rudgwick, the tiny box in the photo and map was replaced fairly quickly by a more substantial building opposite, at the end of the platform.

[dseagull]

Thanks Nick, those are useful. 

 

I think with any layout based on something which may have been planned but didn't happen (and I must agree, probably for the best given the view!), there has to be compromise and suspension of disbelief. My version of Litlington would perhaps be a little bigger/more important than reality, but I'm prepared to live with that. 

 

I'll have another look at the track plan this evening - the dock opposite the platform is by no means a must have. I did want to get as much of a feeling of space as I could within the limitations - I am a big fan of layouts like Sherton Abbas (Wenlock of this parish), Geoff Forster's Llangunllo and the aforementioned Catcott Burtle, and whilst I have no intention of simply copying someone else, if I could get something close to the atmosphere of any of those three I would be delighted.

 

Thanks to all for the support and comments so far, it really is most encouraging.