pre-grouping Suburban terminus (1870s/1880s) - not quite a Victorian Minories

[jamespetts]

Inspired by a fusion of the classic "Minories" layout and the only known photograph of the old Central Croydon station:

 

 

here is a track plan for a Victorian suburban terminus:

 

 

The coloured lines represent fiddle yards (blue for locomotives, green for everything else) and the white lines represent the scenic area. The upper part of the diagram represents the viewing area: the lower and left edges of the diagram are walls in the room where this is intended to fit.

 

The unusual fiddle yard design is intended to take account of the available space and the (probable) inability to couple automatically on a curve. The idea is that the trains will be hauled into the left hand fiddle yard, then propelled into the fiddle yard below the station, where a locomotive will be waiting at the far end to couple to it: the locomotive that propelled it in will then uncouple and rest in the locomotive siding section of the fiddle yard. I should prefer a simpler means of arranging the fiddle yards, but have not thought of a way of doing this effectively.

 

The intention is for the layout to be computer automated. The minimum fiddle yard curve radius is 600mm. All scenic area curve radii are >1m. This is intended to use Peco Bullhead track in the scenic area and Streamline in the fiddle yards.

 

It is intended to represent a fictional south of the river East London Railway terminus circa 1880, with LBSCR and Metropolitan Railway services. The intention is that the LBSCR services off peak will mainly use the middle platform, but sometimes the lower platform, the locomotive being released on the centre tracks, re-coaling (as the A1s had a limited coal capacity) before coupling to the front of the train; the LBSCR peak time services using both platforms with kickback working and the Metropolitan Railway services using the upper platform with kickback working at all times. Locomotive coal trains would reverse in the platforms off peak.

 

I am not sure at this stage whether I will build this layout (or a version of it) as my other layouts are still at relatively early stages and I currently plan to develop those more before building another (and deciding which, if any, to build; other possibilities include using the space for storage, an 009 layout, or a 20th century London Underground layout). This is intended to fit in the last space available for a layout in my shed. However, the improved availability of pre-grouping items ready to run does make this project more attractive, even if the Metropolitan stock is likely to have to be kit built (although the layout can at an early stage be imagined in 1879, just before the spur to the Whitechapel & Bow opened to allow through running to the Metropolitan).

[Nearholmer]

Fascinating concept - an era and area that has so much of interest to offer.

 

You are aware that there was originally an ELR terminus at New Cross? 
 

The other logical inclusion would be the GER, which ran services to Croydon, and possibly the District Ry. IIRC, the Met ran ELR services to Hammersmith via Kings across, and the District to Hammersmith via Westminster, but I’d need to check whether that was after electrification.

 

Checked: during 1880s there were LBSC, GER, District, Met, and SER services over the ELR, although the SER ones were withdrawn when the Met ones started. From what I can work out, the Met trains ran to New + SER, and District to New+ LBSCR, with the GER ones going through to Croydon.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2019 by Nearholmer

[JohnR]

I have long thought the Central Croydon station deserved a model - and with the Terriers and the pre-grouping stock from Hattons seems like now is a good time. The March 74 issue of Railway World seems to have the only been the only article on it. In reality, the LBSCR ran a few services, but the LNWR and the GER ran most of them.  

 

Looking forward to seeing this one progress.

[jamespetts]

I am indeed aware of the LBSCR New Cross terminus - that is part of the inspiration for this layout. It is very hard to find a track plan for it, however.

 

I note that there appears to be somewhat inconsistent information about the history of the East London Railway; some sources seem to put the connexion with the Metropolitan/Metropolitan District Railways at 1880, and others at 1886. Quite when the terminus was used as opposed to through running to Croydon is not entirely clear, but some sources that I have seen suggest that the LBSCR ran all the passenger services onto LBSCR lines, including those to Croydon, but that the GER ran goods trains (and then ran passenger trains to New Cross (SER) when the SER ceased to run from Liverpool Street. I have ordered a book which I hope might clarify things.

 

The sources do seem to suggest that you are correct that the Metropolitan District ran to New Cross (LBSCR), so that might be an interesting opportunity to model that line rather than the Metropolitan, which tends to get considerably less attention; the only kits available of locomotive and carriages are 3d printed, which should be interesting. Sadly, the carriage kits are only available in a more crude type of material and no interior is available.

[jamespetts]

An attempt at revising the track plan to include a more conventional fiddle yard. This one does require the ability to couple locomotives to carriages on a curve. According to this forum thread, using Kadee couplings (my preferred type of coupler for automatic coupling/uncoupling operations), it should be possible to couple down to a 600mm radius if the vehicles are not more than 30' (scale) long, which should be the case for LBSCR carriages and suburban tank locomotives (A1, E1), Metropolitan District Railway carriages and locomotives (A class).

[Nearholmer]

The GER definitely ran passenger trains through to Croydon in your period, and there are photos of their trains doing so.

 

Hoovering-up commuters from Croydon into the City seems to have been “the big idea” behind ELR passenger services for SER, GER, and LBSCR  initially, and the LBSCR went one better and had through services from Brighton for a short period, but I get the impression that people preferred to go to London Bridge and walk, which was probably quicker unless their work was right outside Liverpool Street station. So, over time, the through services to Croydon/Addiscombe Road dwindled, the GER ones lasting longest,

 

St Mary’s Curve opened in 1884, shortly after which the SER services from Addiscombe Road onto the ELR ceased in favour of services from the Met to New+ SER.

 

Old OS maps show the Terminus at New+ LBSCR, and there is one photo that I know of showing it in disused condition, but it seems even less well recorded than Central Croydon. The 1868 map shows simply the up and down tracks between two platform faces, and gives no clue as to point-work.

[Zomboid]

9 hours ago, jamespetts said:

it should be possible to couple down to a 600mm radius if the vehicles are not more than 30' (scale) long,

Not reliably or hands free, I'm afraid. Coupling kadees on a curve requires your shunting pole/ skewer to ensure alignment.

 

(My experience is with HO scale 40' cars with body mounted couplers, if you use truck mounted couplers then you might get different results, but probably at the cost of reliable propelling)

[scottystitch]

20 hours ago, jamespetts said:

Inspired by a fusion of the classic "Minories" layout and the only known photograph of the old Central Croydon station:

 

 

 

here is a track plan for a Victorian suburban terminus:

 

 

The coloured lines represent fiddle yards (blue for locomotives, green for everything else) and the white lines represent the scenic area. The upper part of the diagram represents the viewing area: the lower and left edges of the diagram are walls in the room where this is intended to fit.

 

The unusual fiddle yard design is intended to take account of the available space and the (probable) inability to couple automatically on a curve. The idea is that the trains will be hauled into the left hand fiddle yard, then propelled into the fiddle yard below the station, where a locomotive will be waiting at the far end to couple to it: the locomotive that propelled it in will then uncouple and rest in the locomotive siding section of the fiddle yard. I should prefer a simpler means of arranging the fiddle yards, but have not thought of a way of doing this effectively.

 

The intention is for the layout to be computer automated. The minimum fiddle yard curve radius is 600mm. All scenic area curve radii are >1m. This is intended to use Peco Bullhead track in the scenic area and Streamline in the fiddle yards.

 

It is intended to represent a fictional south of the river East London Railway terminus circa 1880, with LBSCR and Metropolitan Railway services. The intention is that the LBSCR services off peak will mainly use the middle platform, but sometimes the lower platform, the locomotive being released on the centre tracks, re-coaling (as the A1s had a limited coal capacity) before coupling to the front of the train; the LBSCR peak time services using both platforms with kickback working and the Metropolitan Railway services using the upper platform with kickback working at all times. Locomotive coal trains would reverse in the platforms off peak.

 

I am not sure at this stage whether I will build this layout (or a version of it) as my other layouts are still at relatively early stages and I currently plan to develop those more before building another (and deciding which, if any, to build; other possibilities include using the space for storage, an 009 layout, or a 20th century London Underground layout). This is intended to fit in the last space available for a layout in my shed. However, the improved availability of pre-grouping items ready to run does make this project more attractive, even if the Metropolitan stock is likely to have to be kit built (although the layout can at an early stage be imagined in 1879, just before the spur to the Whitechapel & Bow opened to allow through running to the Metropolitan).

 

That looks really interesting, and a solution to the problem I haven't thought of or seen before.

 

I do think your original idea will be the most reliable in terms of uncoupling/coupling.

 

Best

 

Scott

[scottystitch]

I wonder if it might be better to have the loco storage tracks as single sidings, loco length, rather like the old Le Mans starting grid. If that makes sense? It should mean fewer turnouts no chance of any locos being trapped.

 

Best

 

Scott

 

https://www.motorsport.com/vintage/photos/grid4-gt40-starting/178624/

Edited October 20, 2019 by scottystitch

[jamespetts]

Thank you all for your replies.

 

History of the East London Railway

 

I seem to have had not entirely consistent sources on the dates, at least by what I initially recalled, so I have conducted a review of the sources that I have found so far. The sources that I have found so far are as follows:

 

• John Speller gives the opening of New Cross to Wapping as the 7th of December 1869, the LBSCR running the services, with an extension to Shoreditch on the 19th of April 1876 allowing through services to Liverpool Street, which Spellerman states were run by the GER;
• the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_London_line#Establishment_of_the_East_London_Railway]Wikipedia article on the East London Railway[/url] gives the openining of New Cross (LBSCR) to Wapping as the 7th of December 1869, operated by the LBSCR with intermediate stations at Deptford Road (Surrey Quays) and Rotherhithe, a spur to Old Kent Road opening on 13 March 1871, the connexion to Shoreditch on the 10th of April 1880, the New Cross (SER) spur opening on the 1st of April 1880 and the St. Mary's Curve spur opening on the 3rd of March 1884;
• the Wikipedia article on St. Mary's Curve states that the South Eastern Railway used this from the 3rd of March 1884 until the 1st of October 1884, when it was replaced by services on the Metropolitan and District Railways;
• Davros.org gives quite a detailed sequence of dates, showing LBSCR services to Liverpool Street commencing on the 4th of October 1876, the SER service to Liverpool Street from New Cross (SER) commencing on the 1st of April 1880, the through service to St. Mary's (operated by the SER) commencing on the 3rd of March 1884, but withdrawn on the 30th of September 1884, and the following day, the service being run by the Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways, the LBSCR withdrawing its service to Liverpool Street on the 31st of December 1885, to be replaced the following day by a Liverpool Street to New Cross (LBSCR) service operated by the GER, with the terminus station at New Cross (LBSCR) closing on the 31st of August 1886, a service to New Cross Gate (i.e. the LBSCR main station) commencing the following day run by the District Railway;
• a Board of Trade accident report of 1885 indicating that Metropolitan Railway services were running into New Cross (SER) as of that year;
• an LURS article giving the opening year for St. Mary's Curve as 1884;
• Disused Stations, which states that the LBSCR worked the route from teh start from the 7th of December 1869, opening to Shoreditch/Liverpool Street on the 19th of April 1876, a spur to Old Kent Road on the South London Line opening on the 13th of March 1871, a further spur to New Cross Gate in 1876, a connexion to the Metropolitan/Metropolitan District being authorised by Act of Parliament in 1879, and GER trains starting to run in 1886 after withdrawal of SER services.

See also the following maps of the line:

 

 

 

Incidentally, I note that my reference to the source for Central Croydon did not appear in the first post owing to a technical error: it, together with the photograph on the basis of which I designed the platform trackwork, can be found here. It can also be seen here (WIkimedia Commons):

 

 

Coupling on curves

 

So far as coupling on curves is concerned, I used the following data from the source linked above:

 

Here are a couple of empirical conclusions derived by experimenting with Kadee couplers over several decades of time:

 

Reliable push-together coupling of identical cars (car geometry, not necessarily similar appearance):  Minimum curve radius = 3 times car length over coupler faces.  (HO, 40 foot cars, 18" radius)

 

Reliable coupling of similar cars (some 50 footers among the 40s):  Minimum curve radius = 4 times the longer car length over coupler faces.  (HO, 50 foot cars, 30" radius)

 

Reliable coupling of anything:  Minimum curve radius = 5x longest car length over coupler faces.  (HO, full-length passenger cars, auto racks and humonguboxes, 60" radius)

 

Reliable automatic uncoupling requires either both cars being uncoupled to be on straight track or on a uniform radius half again larger than the coupling radius.

 

This is where I got to the figure of 30' scale - 30' in 1:76 is 30 x 4mm = 120mm - multiply that again by 5 (in the "reliable coupling of anything" category above) and I get 600mm, which is the minimum radius of curve on this track plan.

 

Zomboid - do you think that the empirical data in the source to which I refer is incorrect? If there be a conflict of data, the best way of resolving this is to compare the quality of the empirical basis for each conflicting claim. May I ask about the nature of the source for your information to the contrary effect to that cited above (if, that is, you believe it to be incorrect)?

 

If the curve uncoupling cannot work reliably, however, I can always revert to the original plan.

 

Track plan

 

I attach a slightly revised version of the track plan, the difference being to alter the position of the coaling stage to bring it further away from the running lines so as to make the scenic break with the fiddle yards easier to disguise and also so as to add a further siding to allow for easier shunting of locomotive coal trains in addition to slight alteration of the station pointwork to accommodate this.

[Baby Deltic]

Why don’t you do a proper Victorian Minories with cable hauled trains and winding engine.

[jamespetts]

Here is a revised track plan with the original fiddle yards (save for the alteration to the locomotive sidings recommended by Scottysnitch), and an additional siding near the coaling stage, but with the original coaling stage positioning.

[burgundy]

13 hours ago, jamespetts said:

…..it should be possible to couple down to a 600mm radius if the vehicles are not more than 30' (scale) long, which should be the case for LBSCR carriages and suburban tank locomotives (A1, E1), Metropolitan District Railway carriages and locomotives (A class).

 

If it helps to judge lengths, a Terrier and 8 Stroudley 4 wheelers have an overall length of 36" (but note that the carriages are close coupled). 

I put a similar photo up in a discussion about the new Hattons coaches a week or so ago.

 

Best wishes 

Eric 

[jamespetts]

Eric,

 

that is very interesting. 36" translates to 914.4mm, which is shorter than the straight sections of the fiddle yards in the simplified version of the plan. Also, from what I understand, trains on the line at the relevant time were only 6 carriages, albeit possibly increasing to 8 later. (That is a lovely photograph, incidentally - do you have a thread for that layout)?

 

This suggests that the simplified version may well work. I attach a revised track diagram with the simplified locomotive storage area as suggested earlier.

 

I am still not entirely sure how scenically to treat the scenic break, etc., but this may well be a workable arrangement.

[Nearholmer]

It’s an exacting task to pick through all the dates. The key bit missing from your summary is the LBSCR services that didn’t go to New Cross, typically going Peckham Rye to Shoreditch, which ran on at 15 minute intervals even after electrification.

 

It must have been a nightmare to operate Shoreditch when it had both LBSCR terminators and GER trains to/from Liverpool Steet, and I imagine that the LBSC must have used a ‘turnover’ engine there.

[burgundy]

James 

The photo was taken on Cardinal's Wharf, which was scrapped some years ago. It never ran properly but it served as a learning experience and also as a photo backdrop! The buildings have been salvaged and the warehouses were recycled into Vintner's Yard, which is linked from my signature block.

There are a couple of photos below.

For avoidance of doubt, the Terrier is the larger loco.

There was also a thread about the Stroudley 4 wheelers which might be helpful at

 

Best wishes 

Eric 

[Nearholmer]

Had a look at the 1895 1:1056 map, and that shows the New Cross terminus in fossilised state quite well.

 

Two platforms, one either side, two tracks between, a trailing engine release crossover near the stops, another trailing crossover just outside the platforms, a signal box and signals. 
 

There look to be awnings around the stops. And extending no more than about thirty yards along each platform, and a station building with forecourt on the eastern side.

 

It is labelled “low level” station, and the hatchlings make clear that it was at least a few feet below the yard that existed between it and the main line station.

 

The earlier 25” maps and the same-dated one show the same, but omit the crossovers and signals, which is a lesson in the slightly random nature of inclusions and exclusions from maps at various scales.

Edited October 20, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Zomboid]

4 hours ago, jamespetts said:

Zomboid - do you think that the empirical data in the source to which I refer is incorrect? If there be a conflict of data, the best way of resolving this is to compare the quality of the empirical basis for each conflicting claim. May I ask about the nature of the source for your information to the contrary effect to that cited above (if, that is, you believe it to be incorrect)?

I use kadees on my rolling stock. They don't couple reliably on curves.

 

It's anecdotal, being just my experience as a modeller of American railways in HO, but I do like switching above all else, and I've had a lot of examples of kadees not mating correctly and needing assistance of some sort.

[tractionman]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Had a look at the 1895 1:1056 map, and that shows the New Cross terminus in fossilised state quite well.

 

at this spot -- https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=18&lat=51.4772&lon=-0.0409&layers=163&b=1

 

cheers,

 

Keith

[Nearholmer]

Had a look in old editions of The Engineer, which have much to say about the civil engineering of the ELL, the flooding it experienced as the docks above it were expanded, and such things, but nothing much about the terminus.

 

Does include a good map in an 1874 edition, showing parts open and parts still under construction, making clear that the New Cross Terminus was open by then.

 

So, was the terminus building ‘standard’ with the other sites, Shoreditch surviving for a long time largely unmolested? My guess is that it was, but it is only a guess.

 

Has the London Railway Record covered this topic? Surely it must have.

Edited October 20, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Lacathedrale]

Oh, oh! I love everything about this plan - Central Croydon, New Cross Gate Low Level and all   The old Addiscombe branch line terminus is definitely rural rather than surburban. Really interested to see how this develops. I think one of the more interesting things about Central Croydon is how the centre roads of the station must have formed the headshunt for the adjacent gravel pits (although I guess you could argue they weren't concurrent!) - so almost exactly the way that most people orient a 'goods yard' into a Minories plan (normally a kickback on an extra siding parallel the station)

Edited October 23, 2019 by Lacathedrale

[scottystitch]

On 20/10/2019 at 12:59, jamespetts said:

Here is a revised track plan with the original fiddle yards (save for the alteration to the locomotive sidings recommended by Scottysnitch), and an additional siding near the coaling stage, but with the original coaling stage positioning.

 

I wonder, if it would be possible for you to put the locomotive sidings on the left hand (Vertical) wall? It would make access for turning them, etc., easier, than having to lean over the scenic layout.....

Edited October 23, 2019 by scottystitch
Type correction

[jamespetts]

8 hours ago, scottystitch said:

 

I wonder, if it would be possible for you to put the locomotive sidings on the left hand (Vertical) wall? It would make access for turning them, etc., easier, than having to lean over the scenic layout.....

 

I do not think that there is space for them there, if I have understood what you mean correctly.

[scottystitch]

10 hours ago, jamespetts said:

 

I do not think that there is space for them there, if I have understood what you mean correctly.

For the avoidance of doubt and for clarification, my proposal was to move the locomotive storage section either to the right-most of these tracks or add a sixth track for that purpose.

 

With the use of a number of curved turnouts, you might be able to maintain the number of locomotive sidings. Looking again, Looking again, you wouldn't, but it might still be worth looking at for the benefit of easier access.

 

Best

Scott

 

 

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by scottystitch
Correcting an error of judgement

[Pacific231G]

On 20/10/2019 at 17:07, Zomboid said:

I use kadees on my rolling stock. They don't couple reliably on curves.

 

It's anecdotal, being just my experience as a modeller of American railways in HO, but I do like switching above all else, and I've had a lot of examples of kadees not mating correctly and needing assistance of some sort.

I've had the same experience. My current French H0 layout (a small BLT) was converted to Kadees after I'd built it and there are a couple of places where coupling neds to happen near a curve. In those places the couplers almost always need help from a shunting pole. That isn't a problem for me because the layout is very hands on (and the real AAR couplers used on N. American railways are not self centring so often need a shove) but it would be for a hands-off exhibition layout. Uncoupling also needs an appropriate lead up or else the pins may be attracted to the wrong side. 

 

Compared with my early foray into N. American modelling (more Canada than the USA) with longer cars on bogies, coupling and uncoupling was more reliable than wih shorter wheelbase four wheel European wagons but even so I far prefer Kadees to other commercial couplers. It's interesting looking at Loco Revue that the majority of layouts designed for actual operation involving shunting seem to now be using Kadees. traditiional British 4 wheel wagons are shorter than their mainland equivalents though so I'd do some experiments with a test rig before committing to them for the whole layout.