Jump to content
 

La Belle Sauvage (once again, Holborn Viaduct)


Lacathedrale
 Share

Recommended Posts

So, after having a few beers and musing on this with @justin1985 again - I think no matter how I slice it, the prototype Holborn Viaduct is just too much - too much of everything: capacity, size, complexity, difficulty, etc. etc. I am comfortable mating my abilities and wants with what the prototype did to create an interpretation that has the right balance. With that in mind, I feel I have settled on a plan which achieves this:

 

image.png.9cdca006c889ca62f25a85f23fa1ace6.png

 

The main difference of this plan is the introduction of the additional lane in the throat. This has split the pinch point centered on the original double slip between two single slips, and so the only move which blocks the throat is an arrival into P1. Additionally, pilot shunting can take place on all roads without blocking arrivals from the up line.  The use of four rather than six platforms makes the plan made this much simpler than the prototype, and having successfully hand laid all the track depicted, I am confident in my ability to take this forward.

 

The red highlighted double slip is a an optional amendment, which I'll play by ear. It brings the track diagram closer to the prototype and helps fill out some of the dead space in the throat.

 

Here's an aerial view over La Belle Sauvage showing an express pulling into P2 while a local stopping service reverses out of P1 - an example of the kind of movement not possible on the original stylised plan:

 

JTpcz2q.png

Express pulls into P2 while a local reverses out of P1.

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Timbers laid out for the slip below the penultimate coach pictured above. After some head scratching with @justin1985 I'm going to combine bench-building and building in-situ, by building all of the slips on the bench, and then hand laying the 'regular' turnouts between them.

 

j7K02PO.png

 

One interestingfeature is that the timbers only span either end - those on the left will be extended when the adjacent turnout is laid in-situ.

 

Another last (hopefully!) change to the track plan is the conversion of the double slip on the engine shed road into a barry slip - there's no need for access from P1 to the goods headshunt, so no need for the extra complexity. Pictured below - note there's no left-right straight connection.

 

yYqQb95.png

 

I am still no closer to a concrete decision on pre/post-group/post-electrification or indeed a company, but I am thinking that anchoring the layout in the period 1896-1906. This would allow me to depict coaches in LCDR varnished teak and locomotives in black lined red for goods  and black lined grey/red for passengers, like BR lined black. By having a flexible time period, I could also model the more well known purple lake and green of the SECR - with bogie birdcage and the C-class both available RTR. At the other end of the spectrum, there were 1869-built 2-4-0 outside-framed locos pulling express services out of HV to the coast at the middle of the time period, so I also have the opportunity to go a bit mental.

 

If my modelled period moves around (I can imagine building tiny pre-group 0-4-4T's isn't going to be easy) then the layout could easily be forward-dated to the 30's or 40's by laying of conductor rails on the outermost platform faces.

 

A little more reading around HV in the LCDR period shows that the LSWR used the sidings that were on the site of what was to become Holborn Viaduct, before it was built, to return trains from Wimbledon/Merton - but I also found that they did the same with Holborn Viaduct itself to ease congestion until the service ceased in 1906. No meaningful operational interest other than running around between P2 and P3 and out again, but at least I can buy something from the 2mm association shops rather than scratchbuilding!

Edited by Lacathedrale
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been digging around in my books on the LCDR and found a reference to a series of articles in The Engineer circa summer 1874. Having found them online, I set about researching.

 

In February, there's much discussion about this 'important new railway terminus' being built by the LCDR, with '300 men being put on by Mr. Mills on Sunday Night to effect the final up and down line changes'.

 

In July, some few months after the station opened, there's series of articles through to August. It is located approximately at the confluence of the Oldbourne and Fleet River. Construction was commenced in February 1872 removing a series of old buildings, 'unsightly and unsavory alike'. (There are articles in the Civil Engineers books of permitting buildings on land owned by the LCDR exterior to the station being pulled down at cost of salvage, so presumably they stuck around outside the perimeter for longer). A wonderful reference to the removal of 'breakneck steps' at Bishops Court (top of the following plan, east in real world).

 

I have come across a rail plan for Holborn Viaduct drawn by the civil engineers office which is significantly less drunken than the OS grid version. HV only opened in March 1874 so a scant few months before these drawings were published. There are some curious points, see below, which makes me wonder if this was a plan drawn ahead of time and amended during construction...

 

HV_plan_1874.thumb.png.2e405b103e95d6fec4bbc9d7704790d2.png

 

Some interesting things to note which could be ported over to my plan:

  1. The platforms are numbered in reverse to that in the SECR era - with platform road 1 being directly connected to the up line.
  2. There are NO runarounds at all - the dashed line underneath roads 1 and 2 is the metropolitan extension running underneath towards Farringdon
  3. Very odd platforms - looks like Road 1 has no access to the down line, Road 2 and 6 has no access to the up line either. I wonder if there was an assumption that these platforms would be arrival/departure only, or wrong-way-running into Ludgate Hill?
  4. Apparently there was no issue with horrendous curvature on the crossover from No 3 road towards the engine shed headshunt, crossing the multiple turnouts en route??? Frankly this seems like a bizarre connection as it's the only platform with a direct connection...
  5. The engine shed headshunt was only enough for an ash pit, so presumably wagons were pinched back into the siding adjacent.
  6. The siding adjacent the engine shed was NOT a goods shed, just a road to stable wagons for a coaling stage.
  7. No 2 road has an end loading dock, so carriage trucks, horse boxes, etc. abound

There are also some fabulous drawings of the overall roof and profile, which I have amended to a four-platform variant here:

 

image.png.b872bd90414fe99995ddea2ac01bf3cd.png

 

There are also drawings of the columns, trusses and further '3D' details around the access to the low level station, the hotel, etc. which can follow in due course.

 

A description of the various components:

The site of the station is 750' x 135' . The sub-roadbed is approximately 50' above the OS datum. Platforms are 4' higher than sub roadbed. The ascent to HV is 1:100, with the final 900' level.  The descent to the low level station is at 1:40. The station roof is in 3 bays on lattice girders with large glass panes, supported by three ranges of columns of 12, 21' high.  Access to the cab road is from bear lane (underneath the station) and winds up serpentine to platform level, then out onto holborn viaduct itself. The station building (beyond the hotel) is open to the road with arches, roofed by transverse arches and paved with 3" 'cubes'. Most of the extra space under the station is used for stabling, coal storage, etc.

 

Figures from 1891 show that Holborn Viaduct accounted for a mere 2% of railway traffic into the city, and a mere half a percent of city commuters overall!  No wonder the LCDR doubled down on newspapers and parcels!

 

To clarify just how many LCDR stations were in this area:

 

15AoeOv.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Lacathedrale
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing with the 1896 throat on the 50" OS grid map with that described in 1874, there are some major differences..

 

 

In the 1874 plan,  P6 has no access to the down line, and P1 has no access to the up line, so it would appear the platforms by default arrival/departure only. There was almost nowhere to shunt the platforms at Holborn Viaduct in real life, the station limits a mere 120' beyond the last turnout before overlapping the throat at Ludgate Hill- and literally no way to pull stock out of P6 and replace into P1 without pulling all the way back into Ludgate Hill, crossing over the scissors there, and then pushing back into P1 -all the while blocking both arrivals and departures from HV. Given that, I can imagine that P1/6 were probably used less frequently, to avoid blocking  the adjacent, much busier LH.

 

Here are a comple of diagrams to compare:

 

UNNWbqi.png

 

n16nY81.png

 

The list of changes are as follows:

  1. The addition of a crossover on P5/6 to make it bidirectional
  2. The addition of a runaround on P3/4 to allow the non push-pull fitted locos to runaround without needing to hand off to another engine
  3. The removal of the double-tandem-slip (maintenance? derailments?) to be replaced with...
  4. The addition of the slip friendly known in this thread as the "drunken-surveyor" slip to allow a connection from the up main to the outer throat lane.
  5. The not-pictured removal of the bizarre ash pit connection from P4 across P3/2/1 and the engine shed roads at almost 45 degrees (see plan in previous post).

 

These changes greatly simplifity (!) the throat, so seem like obvious changes. There are no dedicated arrivals/departures platforms, and the only movement which is blocking is shunting on the down slow lines into Ludgate Hill for long trains which need tail traffc sorted, or to release locos from P1/2 or 5/6. I guess that even the Chief Engineer's didn't get it right first time, huh?

 

 

 

 

Edited by Lacathedrale
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trackplan

OK, so I cross my heart and hope to die that this is the last time I post a templot screenshot. You will notice I have adjusted the sleeper spacing on the plain track to reflect the 30' rail panels used by the LCDR, and the practise of only exposing every 5th sleeper. I do not think I'm going to model chaired track on this layout, with the ballast up to the bottom edge of the rail, if not up the sides (in vogue until the 1880's apparently!).

 

I have decided to take two key inspirations from the 1874 plan, shown below:

 

image.png.27857e7b52087f32a39913b7b80f188f.png

 

The first change is really just an omission - the crossovers at the buffer-end on P1/2 (not pictured) and at the entrance of P3/4. This is for two reasons:

  1. The 1874 plan had arrival and departure only roads, and @t-b-g has spoken at length of the benefits of an arrival-only and departure-only setup on smaller terminus layouts in the 'Theory of General Minories' thread, and I think this is something I want to capture.
  2. More pragmatically, to create a 2+2 track layout was difficult with the extra length that the P3/P4 crossover added to the throat, and I could not think of a way to model the station canopy with a 1+2+1 track layout.

The second change is the addition of the pilot siding back onto P3. This essentially forms a space for an 'up pilot' to shunt platforms 1, 2 and 3 without affecting the departures-only platform 4, and the rotation of pilot duties between multiple locos.

 

Operations

So P1 (bottom) is departure only, P2/3 are bidirectional, the former hosting a carriage dock, and P4 is arrivals only.

 

 

Scenic Treatment

The 1874 plan described what I think will be a really interesting vignette at the front of the layout - in the very foreground are dilapidated 18th and 19th century slums, behind those is a new carriage road running through an arched tunnel under the station, off of this lane there's a gateway into the station building, following a serpentine slope upwards to a cab-stand at platform level, which leads out to the main road on the right. On the prototype this is on the west/top side of the plan, but luckily for me - I'm not modelling the prototype!

 

Rolling Stock

As an aside, I did some digging around stock and have come up with some very high level plans in that area. I didn't realise that Wainwright essentially tore sheafs from Kirtley's book when it came to loco design - the H-class is essentially a straight line evolution from the A > A1 > A2 > R line, the C-class is a direct evolution of the B > B1 > B2 line, and the D-class comes straight from the M > M1 > M2 > M3 line. I've read that the T-class shunter used by the LCDR to shunt Victoria and Herne Hill has the same wheelbase as a Jinty too, so that's handy, as I've got a Jinty chassis I'm working on now!

 

I have ordered the first (of many) 6w chassis from Bob Jones at Fencehouses, let's see how that goes.

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I delved into the Invicta archives (the SECR society's magazine) and found some interesting information that can shape the layout:

 

Permanent Way

LCDR rail lengths were standardised at 28' panels with 10 sleepers per panel. The first sleeper was 1'1" from the rail end and thence  on 2'10" apart. There was a trench (not an uncovered sleeper) for drainage every 6-7 sleepers. Ballast was river gravel and was specifically known to be to the rail bottom and the bottom part of the rail chairs and particularly untidy. Fishplates were notably heavy.

 

LCDR Signals were essentially Stevens 'invisible' post design for single and double lattices, but some slotted wooden posts remained  from the earliest days. Made of 1 1/14" corner angle, zig zagging every 18". The bottom of the post is 10" square,, and the top 7" square.. 10" rungs spacing on the ladders. Arms were normally 4'11" over a 10" boss which carried pivot - tip was 4'6" from pivot. Arm was 10" wide and made of wood. Working face was painted red with a white stripe 1'1"  from the tip of the arm and being 10" wide. The rear was white with a black stripe.

 

LCDR Signals were all over white except black on the signal lamp and the bottom 4' - including any lattice. Ground signals were painted white with a red square plate and purple glass standing 2'6" high as a fat tapered cylinder.

 

In the 1890's the unilateral description of the urban termini were dark and dingy, garnished with a formidable array of advertisements and in much need of repair and not painted in any uniform colour or livery.

 

Locomotives

Liveries

In the period modelled, any locomotives built by Martley (pre-1874) were maintained in a middle green, black bands and red/white lining, but by this point Kirtley's locomotives were painted overall gloss black with a grey band with white and red lining and concave corners. Towards the very end of the period, the corners became convex and goods locomotives were black with double red lining instead of the band. LCDR monogram was picked out in gold on the tender sides.

 

Kirtley (CME) took over the locomotive department with a severe deficit of modern passenger and goods engines in 1874 but by 1876 had approval for the A, B and M classes (Known by their descendents the SECR H, C and D classes). I've got my hands on some juicy drawings.

 

Locomotives for use on HV

A-type passenger tanks of the 1870's were used on Crystal Palace (HL) and Orpington Services (highlighted by their scrapping upon electrification of those lines). It seems a rather bizarre 'Long Scotchmen' 0-4-2T was in use well until the end of the century as both a pilot and suburban tank locomotive, but I think that might be a bridge too far with outside frames AND an open cab and about the size of a stretched out Terrier!

 

Unfortunately the T-type 0-6-0T pilot loco has a 7'4" + 7'6" wheelbase, rather than the 8' + 8'6" wheelbase of the Jinty  - but I am seriously considering whether  simply using the Jinty mechanism and footplate with a slightly elongated body might be a good solution to get an LCDR loco built early, despite the 3mm wheelbase discrepancy...

 

Coaches

Liveries
Coaches were varnished teak with red shaded gold letters, and passenger-rated goods vehicles in a brown teak-coloured paint with yellow lettering. For express stock the seconds and  thirds had white painted roof/sides, the former with bare wooden seats and the latter upholstered in red/green, while the firsts were upholstered blue cloth and varnished wood roof/sides. Most stock had a rod fitted over windows to procect travellers in tunnels. Roofs were initially white but weathered down to black almost immediately. Black ironwork. Often older stock would have eroded varnish, as a comparison GNR was lauded while other lines had 'teak coaches in any colour from yellow to dingy brown, almost black' .

 

Main line stock circia 1880 had the LCDR monogram between compartments, suburban stock had 'L C & D R' on the coach panels. 

 

Ratios

The LCDR was a financially troubled line, so continued building 4w and 6w stock late compared to other companies, rather than bogie coaches. In the 1880's a 4w coach was considered 'main line' stock. The ratio of coaches should roughly be 6:4:1 of four wheelers, to six wheelers, to bogie coaches. As a city terminus I imagine Holborn Viaduct would have fewer 4w coaches proportionally - but at least 50/50.

 

4w Stock

One thing I hadn't really considered was that the David Gould books 'Carriages of the SE&CR' and 'Bogie Carriages of the SE&CR' have a definite trend towards later builds. At the time of the LCDR/SER concordat the former had over a thousand items of passenger stock - only eighty bogie coaches, four hundred 6w and the remainder were four-wheelers built prior to 1887. 

 

Interesting Train

1889-1893 a 'Club Train' or 'Paris Limited Mail' which was three cars and a fourgon - the four wheeled carriages (Nos. 255-258) with leather covered gangways painted olive green with the Wagon-Lits Company's name and handrails in bronze, plus a standard six wheeled brake van in teak that didn't match the rest of the train.  Or, in reality from HV as a Long Scotchman + First Class + Luggage van to change at Herne Hill.

Station Buildings

 

References

  • Invicta 16, 17, 39, 47, 91
  • Southern Wagons Vol. 3
  • Southern Suburban Steam
Edited by Lacathedrale
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Operation

Over the last few days I've been collating the WTT and PTT entries for the end of the Victorian period for Holborn Viaduct. After much sifting and removal of duplicate routes, I believe I have 'the' timetable covering 24 hours.

 

image.png.114d43860237435f170e1f9868d01b36.png

 

  • Main Line Services - 67 total, 16 of which were considered expresses
    • 14 Boat Trains, to Dover or Queenboro - again, all half-length due to joining with the Victoria portion at Herne Hill
    • 46 Mainline trains to/from the Medway towns and Kent Coast -almost all half-length due to joining with the Victoria portion at Herne Hill
    • 7 'Cheap and Fast' equivalents to the Kent Coast
  • Suburban Services - 110 total
    • to Victoria (9),
    • Bickley (25),
    • Beckenham (17),
    • Crystal Palace (16),
    • Greenwich (4),
    • Tulse Hill/Penge/Sydenham (30) , and
    • other misc. destinations (8 total)
  • Miscellaneous housekeeping
    • 30 Empty stock movements mostly to/from Loughboro Junction spread throughout the day
    • 10 Workmans trains, all between 4 and 7am - primarily between HV and Victoria, and several 3-5am trains from Beckenham presumably for the parcels/newspaper workers
    • 2 Light-engine movements from St Pauls (1 loco) and Stewarts Lane (3 locos) in the morning
    • 3 LCDR goods train per day to Otford, Dover and Maidstone, and 2 GNR goods trains on their way from KX to Clapham Junction. No 'Up goods' ever shown, though.


This implies a 3:2:1 ratio of suburban to mainline trains to 'housekeeping' movements. The real timetable shows some 240 movements, or 120 arrival/departure pairs, 20 of which are simultaneous with another movement. The next challenge is figure out how to pare this down to a representational timetable.

 

Locomotive Roster

Happily I've also recieved a copy of Bradley's "A Locomotive History of the LCDR" and so I can say with some authority that the locomotives thus required are:

 

  1. M-class 4-4-0's to pull the Dover and Queenboro boat trains and the heavily patronised cheap trains to and from the kent coast
  2. A-class and R-class 0-4-4T's to pull the inner suburban services
  3. T-class 0-6-0T for pilot and local goods duties
  4. B2-class 0-6-0 for goods

 

The period I'm modelling had a series of incredibly elderly locomotives still working out of Holborn Viaduct - 0-4-2 well tanks dubbed 'Scotchmen' and 'Large Scotchmen' that dated back to the 1860's, and 2-4-0 express tender locomotives that predate even those - but I think these represent significantly more challenge in construction! It was also fairly endemic on the LCDR to just use 'whatever locomotive was available' on basically any route, so I've got that going for me too!

 

 

 

Lastly,

Edited by Lacathedrale
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having a right mare of a time trying to make a timetable out for the layout based on the real timetable - who'd have thought this was a complicated job??

 

Operation

By my reckoning there are about 240 discreet movements in the working timetable.  If omit a good portion of the suburban traffic which is essentially duplicated scores of times throughout the day, we can group the rest into 6-hour blocks. The timetable is suprisingly consistent throughout the day, so each block could realistically consist of:

  • a couple of outer suburban trains (to Bickley, Gravesend, Chatham, St. Mary Cray),
  • one or two inner suburban trains (to Crystal Palace, Catford, Greenwich, Shortlands and Beckenham), and
  • one Express train (either a Boat train or a cheap, fast and heavy kent coast express)

 

To make each block distinct, the 'morning' block could have have 2 workmen trains to/from Victoria and 2 goods trains to/from Maidstone and Dover, and the 'Dover Mail' trains. The midday block would have empty stock movements to Lougboro' junction as well as a Great Northern goods train. The afternoon block would have a couple of cheap and fast heavy expresses to the Kent Coast and ashford. The evening block would have both the Evening mail and Flushing Mail boat expresses to contend with shuffling between the arrival and departure platforms.

 

Each block could have a different operational challenge:

  • Morning - lots of up trains and goods trains to balance.
  • Midday - Unclogging the station via ECS movements without blocking the GN goods
  • Afternoon - Turning a pair of long, heavy trains through P4 to P1 while other movements are going on
  • Evening - Boat trains are in the 'wrong order' and require multiple ECS movements to satisfy.

Rolling Stock Proposition

Stock wise, this has some interesting implications. As mentioned in a previous post it seems I can get away with only modelling the post-1874 designs of Kirtley.  However, there was heavy reliance on much older motive power which hark back to the 'early railway'-type traditions of open footplates, outside frames and names instead of numbers. Clearly these would be a much greater challenge to take on - but it's there should I find the need!

 

In terms of trains required to support the kind of operational paradigm described above, it seems there's a requirement for:

  • Coaches - 40ish total
    • 20 four and six-wheeled coaches for suburban services
    • 5-10 shabby four wheelers to bolster workmens trains + kent coast expresses
    • 12 bogie coaches for boat trains
    • 6 or so carriage trucks, ventilated vans, passenger rated goods vans, etc.
  • Locomotives  (10 total)
    • 4 Express locos (M, M3, Europa)
    • 4 Suburban locos (A, R, Scotchmen)
    • 1 Pilot, Workmen train loco (T)
    • 1 Goods loco (B)

Seems relatively reasonable to me!

Edited by Lacathedrale
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

In terms of trains required to support the kind of operational paradigm described above, it seems there's a requirement for:

  • Coaches - 40ish total
    • 20 four and six-wheeled coaches for suburban services
    • 5-10 shabby four wheelers to bolster workmens trains + kent coast expresses
    • 12 bogie coaches for boat trains
    • 6 or so carriage trucks, ventilated vans, passenger rated goods vans, etc.
  • Locomotives  (10 total)
    • 4 Express locos (M, M3, Europa)
    • 4 Suburban locos (A, R, Scotchmen)
    • 1 Pilot, Workmen train loco (T)
    • 1 Goods loco (B)

Seems relatively reasonable to me!

 

Wow! 

 

I'd say that's roughly equivalent the operational requirement of Copenhagen Fields at any one time! (and a fair number of CF's locos and coaches are RTR derived - Dapol B17, A1, Farish J39, Dapol Gresley coaches)

 

It looks like a great long term goal, but what about a shorter term goal to get a layout operating with a fleet requiring a bit less scratch building? An MVP, you might say. I'm sure at one point we discussed a "c.1920" scenario, making good use of Farish SECR birdcage stock, C class and N class, maybe Dapol Schools and Maunsells, and Worsley EMUs. Then you can work back adding more LCDR trains as a longer project, but with an enjoyable way to operate the layout in the meantime, rather than a massive load of work required to get a viable "output". 

 

Just a thought - don't want to pour too much cold water!

 

J

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

@justin1985 that is actually really fascinating. I had no idea - and CF is handled by so many people!

 

I don't want to bite off more than I can chew - it seems there's as much to learn about the hobby meta as there is about the minutae. Definitely needs some time to perculate before any decisions or purchases are made, I think. 

 

Exploring a later era and backdating over time may make alot of sense in terms of achievability: A mixture of Maunsell Olive, Bulleid Malachite, 1st Generation EMUs and steam-hauled kent coast services certainly seems like it could be achievable in a much shorter timeframe.

 

For the real Holborn Viaduct the whole bottom fell out of the station around the 1890's with the opening of St. Pauls (i.e. Blackfriars) and it was a steep decline from then until WW1 - by the end it had lost all the boat trains, about half of the suburban services, and its engine shed. By the outbreak of WW2 it had lost the last regular passenger steam working and during the blitz lost the original station building, with the roof following by the 1960's.  It may even be worth exploring that later, dilapidated period also - I feel if we're going to model something other than the zenith of the british railways, there's always the melancholy opposite!

 

Thank you for taking the time to reply, and stoking the coals of inspiration once again.

Edited by Lacathedrale
Link to post
Share on other sites

Forward-Dating Experiment

One of the changes when bringing a layout forward in period from the edwardian period towards the modern era, is that there is an upward trend of both operation (via push-pull and EMUs) and trackwork in efficiency.

 

Due to the reduced complexity of trackwork, a single constructor can build 'more', but conversely more is required to visually balance a scene. For example, a four road HV in post-1925 configuration looks really quite anaemic:

 

jwstZLV.png

Post-1925 plan with a four-track station

 

While the actual six road HV in the post-1925 configuration both looks right and has far less pointwork - two crossovers, two turnouts and a single slip.  The whole visible section can fit in dead scale into two 3' x 18" boards:

 

image.png.ed7ecbd08a19908a78c94ca01954b00b.png

Post-1925 plan represented to scale

 

In reality, between the first electrification in 1925, nothing changed from a track plan perspective until 1963, and of the buildings very little - the front of the station building took bomb damage and the overall roof valance was replaced - so I could essentially place the layout anywhere in that forty year period based entirely on what stock is running. It does bear considering, and there are some very interesting visual and design choices to come out of building a HV set in the 1970's - but far too little scope for operation or stock variety. It might require a bit of smudging around the edges :biggrin_mini2:

 

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

William,

very interesting; I can't remember your time frame, but the Catford Loop opened in 1892.  Regarding locomotives, only the R1 class had the same chassis as the H class but whilst they wee a Kirtley design, they appeared in SECR livery.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

In LCDR guise the layout would be at the apex of operational complexity including the Catford Loop, Greenwich Park branch, Crystal Palace HL branch as well as workmen's trains, boat trains and the overloaded kent coast expresses. As @justin1985 has pointed out however, the demands of the stock will certainly outstrip my short-term abilities, so something which leverages RTR may be a better choice (or conversely, to reduce the scope of the plan).

 

Modelling 1925-1939

I think having done some head scratching and released that modelling the SR period is not actually all that bad - I lose the workmens trains, the boat trains and half of the inner suburban movements - but these were exactly the ones I was cutting down on from the LCDR WTT.  Essentially this period is typified by the early 3 and 4Sub EMUs, with some commuter services and longer distance passenger services being worked by ex-SECR locomotives such as the R1 and H 0-4-4T's and  D, E and L 4-4-0's. The C-classes were much in evidence for newspaper and parcels traffic. Liveries are maunsell olive and bulleid malachite.

 

Modelling 1951-1967

All of the steam hauled passenger services are gone, replaced by a fairly diverse set of multiple unit classes. Freight is in a transition period from clapped out C-classes to Class 33's and 74's. There was much on the ex-SR that stayed in Malachite/Sunshine and even Maunsell Olive until being repainted into BR(S) Malachite in the mid 1950's, so there's a decent level of compatibility with the first half of this period and the second half of the previous.

 

Modelling 1967-72

In this period we are doubling down on austerity, grime and dilapidation - brutalist architecture ontop of Victorian foundations. Though the trackplan is shared with the previous two periods, almost nothing else except any corporate liveried stock from end of the '51 to '67 era survives.

 

Thoughts and opinions on a postcard, please!

 

 

Edited by Lacathedrale
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

difficult choice, for me, between 1925-39 and 1951-67.  For me it depends on what your preferences are and which sorts of stock float your boat.  For me, based on that criterion, then it's the 1951-67 period; if you like a steam, with the odd electric unit then 1925-39 is the obvious choice.  However, what it all boils down to is what you feel most comfortable with.  And you could always do what I'm intending to do with my project, St Mungo's.  Although set in the the early to mid 1960's, by changing the signalling and a few scenic items I can, and will, run LMS 1925-30 period.  I could also run the 1967-72 period with only a minor change, but I think if you went with this option for your layout it would limit the option of running stock from earlier periods without it looking too much out of place.

 

Just my thoughts on it.

 

Roja

 

Ps. On my chromebook the reply box is just about postcard size!

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

William, I can't remember if you have said this previously but is this intended to be a home layout just operated by yourself, or a home layout with several operators or an an exhibition layout? I love the idea of Edwardian trains but together with the task of building the stock needed there is also the complexities of movement. The 1925-39 option would seem to give a great variety of stock but also a simpler timetable. Of course, once you have laid third rail there could be no changing the period backwards.

 

Your researches and deliberations have made for fascinating reading, but of course in the end it's your railway. I hope that whatever decision you come to results in a railway that satisfies you.

 

All the best,

 

Terry

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 @37Oban and @TJ52 - thank you for your replies. It does seem that this decision is now based entirely on my wants, rather than any decision I can outsource to 'reality' !

 

1962 seems to be the golden year for variety if i want to include steam:

  • Structurally, everything is backwards compatible with the grouping and nationalisation-eras including the station and signals
  • Stock wise we have all the major EMU suburban units available for use - 4 SUB (Pre-Group, 'Sheba's, and 'Mary's), 4 EPB, 4 CEP, and the MLVs in BR(S) green with and without warning panels.
  • Steam wise, the last of the C-classes were withdrawn in this year so would definitely feature on the layout as well as BR standards.
  • For diesels, we have the Class 33's and the first batch of 73's in overall green. I could smudge the edges and get some Class 24's also.

 

However, I am really starting to wonder if the token inclusion of a single steam loco justifies the early BR green period compared to the BR blue era (which I can just about remember myself, albeit the tail end).  For any period up until 1973 the only salient differences on the layout would be:

  • The widened lines at the rear of the layout are lifted and track overgrown, and the overall roof is removed in  favour of individual canopies
  • Stock wise, painting in BR blue and blue/grey
  • Everything is just a little bit shabbier.

 

Let's see how my 4Sub build gets on before we make any rash decisions - either way I think building the layout plan to the post 1925 configuration makes the most sense and will be working on that assumption. Would the rail at HV have been bullhead by the post-war era? Maybe the outer platforms when the third rail was laid?

 

tP5ZOwc.jpg

 

Edited by Lacathedrale
  • Like 6
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

There is also the benefit that stock can be converted quickly, rather than having to build everything.

 

Drop in wheelsets for the 24, and I think turned down wheels for the 33s and 73s.

 

74s might be more of a problem.

 

A lot more work required for steam, but at least you would have something running quite quickly.

 

Regards

 

Ian

 

 

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

William,  From 1926 onwards.  They were originally 3-Subs, with the pair of non electrified coaches included in the rush hours.  So they ran as 3-Sub, 6-Sub or 8-Sub, although I presume HV could only accept six coach trains until the platforms wee lengthened.  Many of the wooden 3-Subs had a Bulleid profile strengthener included in the set, others had a fourth wooden bodied coach.  The wooden 4-Subs lasted until about 1962 and were replaced by the BR 4-Epbs (53xx series).

 

Services.  At some point in Southern Railway days the "LSWR" service from Wimbledon was extended from Ludgate Hill.  Check on photos, but I think these were early 4-Epb services.  My memory could be faulty but in 1959 the Catford Loop was still mixed Sub and Epb.  There were also rush hour services via Penge to Kent House, Bickley and Orpington; and a couple of services via the Dartford Loop (now called the Sidcup Loop).  I don't think any of the Maidstone East or Sheerness trains ran to HV but I could be wrong (you are reliant on the memory of a seven year old boy who, given his due, knew all the headcodes).

 

Of course, in the rush hour some services started / terminated at Blackfriars.  Only the Sevenoaks had specific headcodes - 83 for HV; 67 for B'friars.  Vics were even, City was odd, I think the only exception being the LSWR services.

 

I think there were restriction on the steam locomotives that could use HV.  These included D1 and E1 locos on the newspaper trains, but were they allowed at HV after the first stage of Kent Coast electrification in June 1959?  The last Maunsells were scrapped in 1961.

 

If I can finish with 4-Sub doors.  The early ones had ventilators above the sliding windows, the later ones had a fixed window (like the 4-Epbs) and over time doors were shuffled around to some extent.  One saw coaches with both doors. 

Bill

 

 

Edited by bbishop
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate “doing” coaches.  
 

They’re big, cumbersome, fragile, usually have complicated paint jobs, and awkward things like handles to make that more challenging, and you need lots of them...

 

I can’t imagine doing it in 4mm!

 

atb

Simon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back a bit the wheelbase of a LC&DR T class is 7' 4" + 7' 8" which is the same as a Midland 1F 0-6-0T so the Bachmann model might make a suitable donor.

 

The continuity between LC&DR and SE&CR loco design is down to the fact that the LC&DR's chief draughtsman, Robert Surtees, became Wainwright's chief draughtsman.  Basically Surtees designed Wainwright's engines and Wainwright made them look pretty!

 

Chris KT  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Hi - Love these detailed photos of Holborn Viaduct station, as I’m building a part of a London terminus as a return to railway modelling after twenty or more years - inspirational! I can’t make out the sign on the engine shed, beyond Pears. Does anyone know what the rest of the wording was, please? 

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...