Jump to content
 

La Belle Sauvage (once again, Holborn Viaduct)


Lacathedrale
 Share

Recommended Posts

Honestly I just don't think there's any chance of me being able to build all the stock that's available in 4mm RTR in 2mmFS - the very fact it's available in 4mm would significantly undercut any enthusiasm I might hold for attempting to duplicate it all myself in 1:152. Work is almost at an end, so I'm going to use that time to get some time with the pointwork again and try to come to a more fruitful conclusion than I'm finding now.

 

If I were to end up in 2mm, I would pivot the plan towards a convergence with the Caterham layout planning topic I've got going on that follows a similar line of enquiry - being unable to build or line 2mmFS SER/SECR, setting the timeline back a little to encompass EMUs, with operation of those being signalman-to-signalman, as operation, rather than driving them manually.

 

image.png.20147d937e021c2cfa6246848622676f.png

 

It's my understanding that the station was only partially electrified, retaining steam services on newspaper and parcels traffic until at least the 50's. This permutation of the plan would have the viewing side from the front, La Belle Sauvage Yard cut away and the rear of the layout lined by the various ludgate circuis buildings and the congregational hall library. The following crop of a shot from 'Britain From Above' shows a rough view:

 

xbP9vVg.png

 

Presumably the line of the layout would roughly follow the front edge of Bell Sauvage yard and straight across to the outer wall of the trainshed (rather than including all those buildings opposite the Old Bailey!)

Edited by Lacathedrale
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided to go and grab the throat and see what I could do- only to find that I'd put a double slip on the fiddle yard entrance to provision for a future crossover between the main scenic part of the layout and the FY itself. Given that the practicality of the whole thing is in question, I thought it would be the lesser of two evils to pinch the double slip from there for installation on the throat - or at least to validate.

 

Certainly to my eyes the transition is visible, but at a low eye view it's not completely egregious. I am wondering how much of the original pointwork I can remove and replace with C&L sleepers/chairs - certainly the area around the tie bar will need sorting-  but it doesn't look all bad:

 

vhsvQuK.png

 

nK6yPuH.png

 

 

And just because I had the trains out, I decided to put a P-class on there too to simulate what movements might look like:

 

e0nVeEb.png

 

What do you think? I am re-enthused about 4mm just by looking at these pictures!

 

 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

(Snip)

Certainly to my eyes the transition is visible, but at a low eye view it's not completely egregious. I am wondering how much of the original pointwork I can remove and replace with C&L sleepers/chairs - certainly the area around the tie bar will need sorting-  but it doesn't look all bad:

(Snip)

 

The consistency of the ballast and colours will make a big impact on how that transition views in real life. Certainly replacing some track with C&L is an option, I’d suggest a test piece to check it doesn’t look too ‘bitty’. I have a mix on mine but kept some areas in full streamline, and others in Bullhead. Adding chairs to the external face of the streamline points works well helping to disguise the joins.

Ive added a pic of one of my current projects. Code 75 streamline points and C&L Bullhead.

DB754B01-9269-4C83-B64B-EB0842B37E9A.jpeg.44029acfe0db33b64a03b875b2a33230.jpeg

You can see the joins if you look for them, however the consistency in painting, ballast and in my case vegetation draw the eye away from the difference. Paint and associated details like point rodding will help mask the type differences if you use them.

 

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

The removal of the double-slip from the fiddle yard has left a gap that needs to be filled - so I decided that to get things going again, rather than tackling the complex in-situ pointwork on the station throat, I would replace that turnout there. If I fail, no great loss - and if I succeed then it proves the techniques and methods I can use for the visible part of the layout:

 

yT2BHMZ.png

 

This turnout is a curviform B:5.93 - it gives the exact angle of the Peco turnouts. I stuck on 9' timbers on this just for a laugh, although it does very much exaggerate the gauge!

 

I moved this paper template onto a work board. One of the Peco B/H points is laid ontop to illustrate how close it all is - there is a small difference, the tie bar on the hand laid point is one sleeper further away from the vee:

 

Rmhirkf.png

 

And this is how far I got after a few hours:

 

Mqa4bRw.png

 

I have realised that the threeway, diamond and double slip form all the components for the angle through the throat, and if (IF!) I end up hand, laying them, there's no reason why I can't ease this angle:

 

aYx2cxc.png

 

I'm not sure how to achieve that (i.e. what to change - seems that the double slip would have to become an outside double-slip!) but I'll see what I can do!

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The new Bullhead turnouts are quite flexible if you cut the webbings, I’ve done it but not yet laid it. So if you need to tweak any alignment where they are concerned, it might give a bit of adjustment that’s not immediately apparent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps one way is initially ignore the geometry forced on you by the RTR turnouts and crossings and just look at the flow of the trackwork.

 

As far as the complex is concerned what you do know (and cannot be altered) is the track coming into the formation from the right, and the tracks leaving the complex into the platforms

 

Try in Templot laying a plain track from the bottom right (up line) into bottom left (platform 5). Do the some with the top right (down road) to top left (platform 1). Next lay the 3 remaining platform lines (2, 3 & 4) up to the complex. You now know where you are coming from and going to

 

Now you can work on the complex, you should have two flowing lines,you can design the formation using turnouts and crossings of the appropriate size and shape required. You may have to start the complex a bit sooner and in some cases end it a bit later, 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a good shout John, PMP -  I hadn't seen that reply before I started work on the below, which I will report before seeing what I can do with your suggestions!

 

Here's a way I can ease the double slip while maintaining the existing crossing angles...

 

URwT8Eu.png

Double outside slip in 00SF in Templot, in progress

 

Laying on the plan, it looks a good deal better. Annoyingly, all the timbers I spent time meticolously sizing and moving around have been omitted, but here's a before shot:

LYlVFqh.png

Peco double slip

 

After:

7b4poB3.png

Outside double slip, 1:47 crossing angle, turnouts are approximately C8.

 

Unfortunately as you can see, the tie bar for the top-right turnout is on the WRONG SIDE of the diamond in its original position :( I think if I could find a way to make this work, I would go ahead with it - but I've no idea how...

 

Back to your original point/s - I'm having a bit of a mare of a time trying to figure out the geometry of the viaduct - I'm going to need to get my carpenter's square out and do some proper sighting rather than relying on dead reckoning...

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all John, I don't think you're being a killoy. I'm not a complete amateur and I've built a single slip in 2mmFS so I think this could be manageable - the challenge would keep me engaged I think ? But for now it's just an idea while I'm sitting at my computer ""working"" instead of in the workshop finishing off the turnout pictured above :)

 

 

Edited by Lacathedrale
Link to post
Share on other sites

William

 

I think it would be almost unbuildable in chair and ply timbers owing to the amount/size of the sub assemblies required. The one thing in your advantage is your  could) build it on a ridgid track base.

 

I would suggest building it in what I would call a composite method, that is using copperclad timbers instead of ply, then using copperclad or metal risers 0.5 mm thick to raise the rail to chair height.  The biggest issue I see is that the common crossing at each end is actually a formation of three common crossings in quick succession, needing not only being in alignment with each other but dead flat. Quite an engineering feat to fine tolerances

 

I look forward to see how you attempt the build 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

With Martin Wynne's help I've managed to get the formation above working...   albeit now as an asymmetric double outside slip:

xnzMOXF.jpg

 

Even without timbers or centre-lines, it looks horrific and though it meets all the rules though so it's possible in theory, I'm not sure it's even buildable, particularly the v-crossings on the shorter route.

 

Perversely I wonder if it would be easier in S4 just so you've got some space to play with:

image.png.8a6ccb48c465f01026e083c79fe77e0c.png

 

I'm going to finsih up my the point for the fiddle yard first obviously, and no decisions are required no this bit until later on.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your contributions and help in this thread, absolutely nothing added is without appreciation and has all helped me better clarify what I want, and hopefully how to achieve it, and so It is with a heavy heart that I draw this particular phase of layout construction to a close:

 

image.png.a7883023c3094b50b860cf26f2a7e6ee.png

&c

 

It is the culmination of a number of factors over the last few days:

  1. My partner suggested I put a couple of my models on show, and I realised that I have absolutely no attachment to any of the shop-bought models, as pretty as they are, compared to even the most wretched kit or scratchbuild I've made.
  2. 4mm is not my native scale, and the hint of 2mm (at the top of this page) made me realise that's really what I want to be doing - particularly highlighted with the recent discussion of prototype trackwork, flowing curves and potentially adapting stock.
  3. The permanent space available for the layout has resolved back to the original footprint of 10' x 18", so with the layout's current 13' in length it would need to be erected in the garage which is significantly less desirable.

The research and design aspects have been outrageously enjoyable, and that same R&D brought me ever closer to the prototype Holborn Viaduct - and so this plan, these ideas and this inspiration will continue to live on in this thread in due course. In the meantime, I am dispensing of my 4mm models and building materials, and 7mm bits and bobs on ebay (wayerst, if anyone wanted to get a look in) - with a view to refocus after a short period of reflection.

 

Cheers,

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I think your heart hasn't really been in this one for a while and I totally understand your reasoning.

 

It is easy to get distracted with other projects and other scales and gauges. I have done it myself!

 

My modelling has gone down the same path where I would rather run a less than perfect model built by hand rather than the super RTR ones around that are available to all and sundry. It is the individualism and unique nature of a kit or scratchbuild model that wins the day for me.

 

Showing people something you have made rather than bought is immensely more satisfying.

 

Good luck with whatever comes next!

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

I too could almost see this coming! Far better to change course now than get well into the project and then have a change of mind.

 

Good luck with the next phase William, I shall look forward to following your planning and progress.

 

Terry

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

Really, the only thing that's lost to the winds is the Peco Code 75 streamline flex track I laid on the fiddle yard - the baseboards, the research, etc. all go forward to a next phase. I'm reluctant to commit myself at this early stage as the dust does need to settle. That said (without proof I can handle it) my provisional mission statement is:

 

"To represent Holborn Viaduct from trainshed to the far end of Ludgate Circus as accurately as possible for the period of 1939-54 in 2mm/ft."

 

By doing this, I am working in a scale that I am most passionate about and familiar with, in a space that can be accomodated in my home* and can materially implement the results of enjoyable prototype research on stock and workings, signals and operation.

 

* Having already worked this bit out, it is as follows: the trainshed up to the end of platform 2 would fit onto one 3' board,  the throat up to ludgate circus would fit on another 3' board, leaving up to 4'6" for a fiddle yard (an 8EPB is a shade under 3'6)

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 16/03/2020 at 20:22, Lacathedrale said:

Working through the 1921 WTT for parcels and freight, there are some wonderfully anachronistic freight trains involving Holborn Viaduct:

  • At midnight, a train of cattle from the GER from Norwich via the GE Mainline, East London Railway, New Cross, to Hither Green and then back up to Holborn Viaduct - vans attached to the early morning newspaper trains as neccesary (expectation: 12 vans). Except vans for Westerham, which were sent to Cannon Street. And then to Charing Cross. And then attached to the first train to Westerham at around 9am the following morning.
  • Some shuttling of vans between HV and Blackfriars Goods was required in the early hours of the morning
  • Around 5am, the aforementioned Newspapers + Vans + potentially Cattle to both Ramsgate and Dover depart. Anything for the Crystal Palace branch is delayed until the 9am train in that direction.
  • No parcel workings are permitted during the morning, lunchtime, or evening rush.
  • At 2:45pm, the Holborn Pilot has to rush out and attach any vans bound for Cannon street onto the back of a GNR train that's come up the Metropolitan extension and is simmmering away over in Ludgate Hill. The return journey is at 3:45pm, and pulls all the way into Holborn Viaduct, for the Holborn pilot to add any extra vans onto the back - and then is piloted back out to Ludgate to resume its journey to points north.
  • At 4:45pm, an LNWR train arrives and is shunted and goes on to points north via Loughboro Junction and Battersea Bridge, the reverse happens at 10pm.
  • At 9pm, a transfer from Clapham Junction occurs for parcels and luggage for the GNR

 

Very stern words are used about the use of Fish Vans as parcels and luggage trucks - they must be immediately emptied and trans-shipped at Holborn Viaduct - as well as anything that's less than a full 30cwt van-load, or consists of multiple destinations in a single van.

 

 

I'm sorry to hear this project has finished, but I can totally empathise with not being able to pursue every idea and the need to sometimes return to your 'main project'. 

 

However, this area and subject are of big interest to me and I am very interested in this LNWR train arriving at HV as I've never seen anything like this in my studies of the area. Am I right in thinking from what is written here that this train arrived via widened lines, reversed into HV and then headed back towards LNW via Loughboro Junction, Battersea Bridge and the west london line? If so, does anyone know how it accessed the widened lines? I seem to remember there was possible access to GN (and then down the drain at kings cross) from NLR near Belle Isle, but that seems a very roundabout route and would need access from LNW to NLR from somewhere as well? Anyone have any further details?

 

This thread has already been a goldmine of info so thanks in advance!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no sensible access to the Widened Lines from the LNWR (although LNWR to NLR access is available at Willesden and Primrose Hill, which might permit a GNR route with a reversal) so surely it must have come via the WLER.


I’m confused .....

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.76770c4b61a589f6634b233996267ab8.png

 

I can't find the exact entry which shows the movement,  but it does show that LNWR locomotives as late as 1921 were seen in and around Holborn Viaduct. It doesn't show anything at Snow Hill/HV Low Level/etc. which one might expect given the ratther stringent restrictions apparently imposed on routing.

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

image.png.76770c4b61a589f6634b233996267ab8.png

 

I can't find the exact entry which shows the movement,  but it does show that LNWR locomotives as late as 1921 were seen in and around Holborn Viaduct. It doesn't show anything at Snow Hill/HV Low Level/etc. which one might expect given the ratther stringent restrictions apparently imposed on routing.

 

Agreed I suspect you are both right and that the West London route was taken. Given it is stipulating LNWR 0-8-0 locomotives as well, that would surely be an indicator that the Widened lines were not used; I'm no expert on the North Western, but I can not think of any 0-8-0 tanks? Only A, B, G and G1 which are all tender locos and wouldn't meet the stringent restrictions imposed by the MET which you mentioned. I am making assumptions here, based on the objections they had with the GNR L1 design.

 

Excellent news though, because it adds a whole new company in the Holborn area that I can model! 

 

Thank you for the info

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 01/09/2020 at 19:28, SVS said:

 

Agreed I suspect you are both right and that the West London route was taken. Given it is stipulating LNWR 0-8-0 locomotives as well, that would surely be an indicator that the Widened lines were not used; I'm no expert on the North Western, but I can not think of any 0-8-0 tanks? Only A, B, G and G1 which are all tender locos and wouldn't meet the stringent restrictions imposed by the MET which you mentioned. I am making assumptions here, based on the objections they had with the GNR L1 design.

 

Excellent news though, because it adds a whole new company in the Holborn area that I can model! 

 

Thank you for the info

I think a few LNWR 0-8-0T were converted from 0-8-0 tender in the 20th century; or were these 0-8-2T? Either way, they were not condensing engines. The LNWR's only condensing goods engines were the pair of special condensing tanks that worked at Liverpool.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 10/06/2020 at 16:18, Lacathedrale said:

Honestly I just don't think there's any chance of me being able to build all the stock that's available in 4mm RTR in 2mmFS - the very fact it's available in 4mm would significantly undercut any enthusiasm I might hold for attempting to duplicate it all myself in 1:152. Work is almost at an end, so I'm going to use that time to get some time with the pointwork again and try to come to a more fruitful conclusion than I'm finding now.

 

If I were to end up in 2mm, I would pivot the plan towards a convergence with the Caterham layout planning topic I've got going on that follows a similar line of enquiry - being unable to build or line 2mmFS SER/SECR, setting the timeline back a little to encompass EMUs, with operation of those being signalman-to-signalman, as operation, rather than driving them manually.

 

image.png.20147d937e021c2cfa6246848622676f.png

 

It's my understanding that the station was only partially electrified, retaining steam services on newspaper and parcels traffic until at least the 50's.

 

 

Due to its compact size, the only platforms which could take the 8 car EMU formations being introduced in the late 20s were platforms 4 & 5 - and even then that was at thee expense of blocking access to platforms 3 / 6 while the EMU was in 4 / 5. Consequently conductor rails were not installed on platforms 3 & 6 as they were not suitable for EMU services.

 

In the late 1930s as the electrified network spread it was decided to extend and electrify platform 1 so as to provide further 8 car EMU accommodation by removing the loco spur / loco shed under the water tank and adding a cantilevered section of platform above Sea Coal Lane. This then blocked easy access to platform 2 all the time a train was in platform 1 - so platform 2 also lacked conductor rail.

 

The non electrified platforms were thus relegated to handling steam / diesel hauled parcels traffic till British Rail transferred it elsewhere and demolished the disused platforms resulting in the massive gap seen in later pictures of Holborn Viaduct.

 

 

 

 

Edited by phil-b259
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I've been fiddling with the track plan for HV in Templot, and re-drawn it moving slightly away from the prototype but with a much more reasonable set of permanent way components. The modified version is above, the original (minus the Widened Lines connection) is below:

 

 

 

image.png.358eb0a60face36b9a829f80313a1e8c.png

 

 

So with regard to the changes:

  • Reinterpretation of geometry rather than tracing OS-grid maps
  • Omission of Platform 6 - no operational impact, and means we can lose a three-way ANd a double slip. It also widens space for the rest of the throat considerably
  • Re-use of the space from those changes to amend from A5/B6 turnouts to C10/B8 turnouts throughout the throat

Overall this has resulted in a much smoother layout with shallower curves and acutely angled turnouts. Overall I think it's a far better track plan!

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

EDIT: Figured out a potential problem - Platform 3 is 'departure only' in the new layout, unless either the slip becomes a double-slip, or some serious re-jigging. Is it it worth it? Thoughts on a postcard please!

Edited by Lacathedrale
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit more tweaking has resulted in this:

 

imxph1Y.png

 

Worth noting that the real HV has a runaround between platforms 2 and 3 (the middle two tracks in this diagram going off the left)

Changes:

  1. Converted the single slip to a double slip to provide access to P3 from the up main
  2. Straightened out the tangent link from P4 to the up main
  3. Lengthened and curved the shed headshunt.

I'm not sure the additional complexity of the double slip is worth it in the model (in real life it'd be a no-brainer!) - the reason being that I've already got three other platform roads with direct access from the up main and the inefficiency of a 'departure only' road in the station is more interesting! In HV the middle platforms were used for newspapers, parcels, and as a runaround loop by the 1920's, so even during its heyday, such a mainline station already had an odd operating pattern. Much to mooch upon, but first thing's first - to build a proof of concept, curved C10 double-slip...

 

3Pmk3vD.png

Edited by Lacathedrale
  • Like 3
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...