Seaton - Southern Railways Grouping Layout in 4mm

[tender]

I have wanted to model the South West in Southern Railways Grouping era ever since my interest in model railways was rekindled a few years ago.

Not being very well informed about the rights and wrongs of track plans I thought I’d surpass this problem by modelling something close to prototypical (with a bit of compression to make it fit the available space)

After a lot of procrastination and a move away from the North Cornwall Railway (which I had previously considered, for the time being), I have finally settled on a location from my childhood holidays. Well, not quite, we went to Beer (just around the corner from Seaton) for about 10 years on the trot.

 

Having done a few searches on the RMWEB and ScaleFour Forums it first appeared that this location hadn’t been modelled recently, however after doing a Google search I did come up with a Layout by the Beckenham and West Wickham MRC ‘Seaton’. After having a look at what pictures were available, it appears to be a pre grouping layout of the LSWR, (maybe someone here could confirm this) so my layout should have a very different flavour to it.

 

Looking through the various books that I’ve collected over the past few years there’s not an awful lot to go on but I do have a few (scaled) track plans from three periods:1903, 1940 and 1959.

There’s not much difference between the 1940 and 1959 plans but the 1903 plan is significantly different.

 

1903

1959

(An Historical Survey of Southern Sheds, Chris Hawkins and George Reeve, Oxford Publishing Co.)

 

This is creating a bit of a dilemma as, from reading various accounts of the development of Seaton station, it transpires that it underwent a significant rebuilding during 1936/7, right in the middle of my chosen era.

So, should I model Seaton with the 1903 plan, with the danger that without stock it might begin to look like a copy of another layout, or choose a post 1937 plan?

Obvious choice I here you say, but It’s not that straight forward. The redevelopment of the Station included a significant lengthening of the platform, such so that it would take up most of my available 12’ scenic section. Added to which it looks pretty boring.

 

So this is where a bit of modellers license might have to be made.

The 1936/7 redevelopment saw a new ‘deco style’ Station concourse, new (relocated) engine shed, signal box and goods shed, lengthened platform and the addition of the ‘Beer Stone Co.’ in the (now presumably private) siding. These would all be modelled with the exception of the lengthened platform but the track plan would remain as per the 1903 version, with the exception of the access to the shed.

 

 

Proposed Plan

 

Alternatively the new shed could be at the same location as the old shed in the 1903 plan.

 

Any comments at this stage would be most welcome before I get too far down the line (excuse pun).

 

Ray.

[Oldddudders]

The runround in 1903 looks about capable of 2 coaches at the most. Wouldn't suit me!

 

I knew a chap who'd been SM at Seaton. but lost touch nearly 30 years ago, sadly!

[Donw]

The old plan and therefore your proposed plan has a very short run round loop which will either restrict the trains you run or make shunting run round moves etc. very complex. I would go for the later layout but restrict the length of the extension. If you can run round a four coach train which would need about 250ft between the fouling points. I reckon this should fit easily without moving the first turnout forward. This will also look correct with the newer buildings.

Don

[bbishop]

Ray,

 

I was involved with the Beckenham layout until the club decided to dispense with my membership. It is actually privately owned and was built for the Scalefourum 1883 challenge. There is a degree of compression. As Ian points out, the run round allows for a very short train and actually there is a ticket platform on the water side of the loop.. In my opinion, it's a decent enough plan for private operation but, frankly, is not very good as an exhibition layout.

 

I wouldn't touch the 1936 plan. Long, stringly and not much operational interest. Have a look at the other terminii; Lyme Regis, say, without the light railway order.

 

I'm actually bushed out so will expand my thoughts were the thread to develop.

 

Bill

[tender]

Hi Ian/Don.

Point taken regarding the length of the run around. Another consideration I need to make is the length of the fiddle yard which I have to restrict to 4'. This would limit the length of any trains to about 3 coaches (maybe 4 at a push) plus loco. It is also my intention to model this layout in P4 so the point work is going to be longer than that usually associated with 00 gauge.

I'll have a go at plotting out the 1940/59 plan in Templot to scale (with appropriate compression of the platform) over the next day or so and see what it looks like.

 

Ray.

 

Edit, thanks for your thoughts Bill, I'll take your comments on board.

[Jon Gwinnett]

Worth mentioning that Seaton featured in British Railway Journal,I think its 36 and 37, with good photo coverage and OS map extracts, and Barry Norman drew a plan based on the earlier configuration in MRJ.

 

Personally, I think the Art Deco 1930s station building is very attractive, but the length of the revised platforms makes the newer layout a problem.

 

I have just this week been toying with the idea of doing a sort of half way house version, and calling it Axmouth (t'other side of the river)

[ess1uk]

look forward to seeing this progress

[tender]

The runround in 1903 looks about capable of 2 coaches at the most. Wouldn't suit me!

 

If you can run round a four coach train which would need about 250ft between the fouling points.

 

Following on from Ian and Dons post, I thought I'd make some scale measurements from the early plan (assuming the scale bar on the drawing is correct).

 

(An Historical Survey of Southern Sheds, Chris Hawkins and George Reeve, Oxford Publishing Co.)

 

So converting to 4mm scale.

From the station frontage to a point just beyond the signal box is about 4200mm (14')

The usable length of runaround (allowing for fouling points) is about 900mm, a Maunsell coach is about 225mm so just about enough for 4 coaches.

The West platform (top) is about 1300mm (longer than the fiddle yard @1200mm),

and the East Platform is about 1650mm.

Width wise, from the extreme top edge of the Goods shed (top) to the bottom extreme edge for the the coal stage (bottom) measures out to about 600mm (baseboard width).

 

So with modest amount of compression, reducing the run around (to 700mm, 3 coaches), platform lengths (to 1000/1350mm) and maybe the use of a tandem point (3way) after the signal box I should be able to get the overall length of the scenic down to 3600mm (12').

 

I was going to do the same with the 1959 layout but there's no scale on this drawing so not as straight forward. I think the 1940 drawing may have a scale on it, but I thought I'd get views on this first as this plan to me seems to have more potential.

 

Comments welcome.

 

Ray.

[Peter Bedding]

Hello Ray

 

I shall be another to watch your progress with interest.

 

You invited comment. Well I would only offer the thought that, in P4, trackwork assumes historic accuracy. Almost certainly, prior to rebuilding, the branch S&C might still have been to one of the L&SWR pre-grouping standards, which would have been different from the post 1922 REA standard.

 

Where does compromise finish?

 

PB

[mjcampbell]

That earlier plan is much more original and interesting to me, the "modernised" layout is much too generic and lacks character. However, the fact that it was altered so much suggests that the original plan was somewhat flawed! Did they use gravity or a second loco to run-round? Or did the platform take two trains?

 

So, unless you want to make an exact model, I would adjust the lengths of the loop or platform. I mean, if the loop is 900mm, and a fiddle yard of 1200, there's no point in having a platform of 1650mm! If you shorten the platform to about 1300mm (slightly longer than the longest train), perhaps extend the loop to 1000mm (to comfortably run round the longest train), then operation will be much easier. You will also have a little more space for scenic run - or a shorter layout - and should have kept all the character of the original.

[tender]

Hello Ray

 

I shall be another to watch your progress with interest.

 

You invited comment. Well I would only offer the thought that, in P4, trackwork assumes historic accuracy. Almost certainly, prior to rebuilding, the branch S&C might still have been to one of the L&SWR pre-grouping standards, which would have been different from the post 1922 REA standard.

 

Where does compromise finish?

 

PB

Hi Peter.

I'm afraid you've got me there with 1922 REA Standards. That's the great thing about RMWeb, its like being back at school, so much to learn. I did a google search and drew a blank but I guess this has something to do with sleeper sizes/spacing? I've noticed REA on all the point templates I've been playing around with in Templot but to be honest took no notice of it's significance. As a result of visiting Manchester and Worley exhibitions a few weeks ago I've developed an interest in kit building and P4, it's all very new to me. I now have a couple of SR kits and conversions either on the go or in the waiting room so the problem now is I need a layout to run it on hence this thread.

 

 

That earlier plan is much more original and interesting to me, the "modernised" layout is much too generic and lacks character. However, the fact that it was altered so much suggests that the original plan was somewhat flawed! Did they use gravity or a second loco to run-round? Or did the platform take two trains?

I think the main reason for the development of the station may have been an increase in passenger traffic associated with the opening of the Warners holiday camp. (or was that later?)

 

So, unless you want to make an exact model, I would adjust the lengths of the loop or platform. I mean, if the loop is 900mm, and a fiddle yard of 1200, there's no point in having a platform of 1650mm! If you shorten the platform to about 1300mm (slightly longer than the longest train), perhaps extend the loop to 1000mm (to comfortably run round the longest train), then operation will be much easier. You will also have a little more space for scenic run - or a shorter layout - and should have kept all the character of the original.

 

I'll be playing around with the lengths of the platforms and run around as you suggest in Templot, printout a full scale plot and try moving around some scale card trains to check for operation and clearances before making any firm decisions.

 

Ray.

[Peter Bedding]

Hi Peter.

I'm afraid you've got me there with 1922 REA Standards. That's the great thing about RMWeb, its like being back at school, so much to learn. I did a google search and drew a blank but I guess this has something to do with sleeper sizes/spacing? I've noticed REA on all the point templates .......

 

Ray.

 

Industrial pressures generated by WW1 caused the Government to lean on the pre-Grouping Railway Companies to standardise wherever possible. All of the major companies had their own designs, components and practices for switches and crossings (and much else). A Railway Executive Committee was formed, they in turn appointed a Railway Engineering Authority who set to, amongst other work, and attempted to come up with a working set of standards for S&C. The formal adoption of these standards took place in 1922, although I have been led to believe that the LSWR Drawing Office at Waterloo were issuing associated drawings before this.

 

As far as the Southern was concerned, the new standards prevailed for new work, but existing usable components, and their geometry, continued until exhaustion. Parts of the SW main line certainly had pre-grouping track in the 1950s, sidings on the Isle of Wight (Sandown), were using pre-grouping track at the end of steam, and I well remember seeing pre-grouping chairs in use at Andover and Basingstoke in the early 1990s.

 

The REA geometry made changes to leads, sleeper spacings, chairs and rail lengths, none of which need matter to modellers when adopting a compromise model standard like 00, or EM. After much faffing, I adopted Mr Peco's Streamline standards for my layout for reasons of reliability and robust construction, and the visual quality of this can be confirmed on RMWeb by, amongst others, "Hintock".

 

But the driving spirit of P4 is precise uncompromising accuracy, particularly at right angles to the direction of travel. And this does not come easily either in first build or ongoing maintenance. So the purpose in my earlier comment was that, perhaps before you make a decision which might be a rod for your back, you might wish to determine which prototype components were in use for the period that you choose, and then see if Templot data is compatible. The South Western Circle does have a set of drawings for pre-grouping S&C geometry, but they are far from perfect (I know, I drew them!), and only represent the information that we know to have survived.

 

 

I hope this helps!!

 

PB

[tender]

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the explanation , however I'm still struggling finding any information regarding REA geometry and pre grouping S&C geometry. I did find some templates for LSWR plain track (30',45') and SR plain track (45',60') on the Scalefour forum but point work apart from Templot REA seems elusive. I did look at the South Western Circle website but all the drawings seems to be available to members only, which is fair play. I guess I may have to join if I draw a blank elsewhere.

What I have found is templates from different sources seem to differ regarding sleeper spacing etc as can be seem here. (C&L, Templot REA, Timber Tracks)

 

 

Ray.

[martin_wynne]

LSWR plain track (30',45') and SR plain track (45',60') on the Scalefour forum but point work apart from Templot REA seems elusive.

 

Hi Ray,

 

REA bullhead is the default in Templot, but the program can generate templates for any proptotype. The full range of GWR switch designs is already included -- click the real > switch settings... menu item, and then the ? help F1 button for some detailed notes.

 

If you ask on Templot Club forum, it's likely that someone will have created LSWR templates and be willing to share their Templot files.

 

The advantage of using Templot to create your templates is that you can curve them to any desired radius to fit your track plan.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[tender]

 

 

Hi Ray,

 

REA bullhead is the default in Templot, but the program can generate templates for any proptotype. The full range of GWR switch designs is already included -- click the real > switch settings... menu item, and then the ? help F1 button for some detailed notes.

 

If you ask on Templot Club forum, it's likely that someone will have created LSWR templates and be willing to share their Templot files.

 

The advantage of using Templot to create your templates is that you can curve them to any desired radius to fit your track plan.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the pointer to Templot Forum. I've just been on and done a search for LSWR and come up with enough useful information to be getting on with. No doubt there will be other questions regarding track geometry once I get nearer a final track plan.

I' m currently trying to work out how much compression I need to get the prototype into my available 12' but still maintaining enough platform length and run around to keep operation interesting.

 

One thing I'm having problems with at the moment is estimating the width of the platform as this will impact track spacing at the throat.

 

It's not easy trying to estimate this from the track plans and photographs so If anyone has any information regarding this it would be appreciated.

 

Ray.

[MartinWales]

Hi Ray

 

How about inserting another point at the station throat of the lower plan in your first post thereby eliminating the short run round problem and preserving potentially longer train lengths, which also gives slightly better flexibility with two loops

[tender]

Hi Martin.

Thanks for your comments. Long trains is something i'm not too worried about as the fiddle yard is only 4' and is ultimately the limiting factor. At best this gives me 4 coaches plus loco.

The old Seaton station had pretty short platform so wouldn't have seen long trains in any case(?).

 

 

This is my first stab at a templot plan for the station (thanks to Martin Wynne for help with this). I've put on 4 coaches in the loop to give an indication of scale. The clearances looks a bit tight on the sketchpad drawing but on the full size track plan they look ok.

The Bay end of the platform might need a bit of widening (along with the track spacing), it currently scales at 15'6" but I've no data regarding the prototype for this. Taking some measurements from a few photos it looks to be about 20-25' but I'm not sure about the perspective from these.

If anybody has some ideas about this it would be most helpful.

 

I still have to put in goods siding but will leave that until the Station is finalised so i can see how much room is left.

 

Comments welcome.

 

Ray.

[mjcampbell]

That looks good. You've reversed the location of the engine shed, any particular reason?

[tender]

That looks good. You've reversed the location of the engine shed, any particular reason?

 

Hi Michael,

This is the plan for the pre 1937 period which has the shed as shown.

Post 1937, this was changed and the shed moved to the other end and the direction of the crossover changed along with the addition of a long loop and extended platform.

 

This is where my dilemma is, the period I wish to model from a stock point of view straddles the 1936/7 development.

Personally I think the pre 1937 plan is more interesting and being a smaller platform sits more comfortably in a 12' space.

So the compromise is the new shed/loop/platform extension never happened (or happened later).

 

Ray.

[MartinWales]

Still think that a combination of old and new runround loops would give greater flexibility and possibly stamp the identity of the Seatonish type plan and possibly with the name changed too!

[mjcampbell]

Ah, sorry. "Pay attention at the back!"

[7APT7]

Hi Ray

 

Plan looks good mate, look forward to seeing this at a show in the future...

 

Jamie

[bazza.]

 

Industrial pressures generated by WW1 caused the Government to lean on the pre-Grouping Railway Companies to standardise wherever possible. All of the major companies had their own designs, components and practices for switches and crossings (and much else). A Railway Executive Committee was formed, they in turn appointed a Railway Engineering Authority who set to, amongst other work, and attempted to come up with a working set of standards for S&C. The formal adoption of these standards took place in 1922, although I have been led to believe that the LSWR Drawing Office at Waterloo were issuing associated drawings before this.

 

As far as the Southern was concerned, the new standards prevailed for new work, but existing usable components, and their geometry, continued until exhaustion. Parts of the SW main line certainly had pre-grouping track in the 1950s, sidings on the Isle of Wight (Sandown), were using pre-grouping track at the end of steam, and I well remember seeing pre-grouping chairs in use at Andover and Basingstoke in the early 1990s.

 

The REA geometry made changes to leads, sleeper spacings, chairs and rail lengths, none of which need matter to modellers when adopting a compromise model standard like 00, or EM. After much faffing, I adopted Mr Peco's Streamline standards for my layout for reasons of reliability and robust construction, and the visual quality of this can be confirmed on RMWeb by, amongst others, "Hintock".

 

But the driving spirit of P4 is precise uncompromising accuracy, particularly at right angles to the direction of travel. And this does not come easily either in first build or ongoing maintenance. So the purpose in my earlier comment was that, perhaps before you make a decision which might be a rod for your back, you might wish to determine which prototype components were in use for the period that you choose, and then see if Templot data is compatible. The South Western Circle does have a set of drawings for pre-grouping S&C geometry, but they are far from perfect (I know, I drew them!), and only represent the information that we know to have survived.

 

 

I hope this helps!!

 

PB

Hi Peter

 

I have been modelling in Protofour for the last last 40 to 45 years.

 

What sets P4/S4 it apart from other 4 mm scale model railway track is it's accuracy. 

 

Never mind the 1922 Railway Engineering Authority standards which applied to real railways. Model railways is a hobby and with the use of only four P4 track gauges and a good soldering iron, I believe that any one can build the most accurate 4mm scale model railway track avaliable in the UK.

 

I am still using the original Protfour turnout templates that I purchased from the Protofour society over 45 years ago. They have been photo copied, cut to make curved turnouts, and cut and joined to make complex turnout formations. As long as you use the P4 track gauges, incorporate  transition curves, and super-elevation, you will always make accurate high speed 4mm scale model railway track track.

 

Finally Peter, what on going maintence? apart from cleaning, the Protofour track that I first laid 40 odd years ago is still working today, as are the turnouts!

 

Happy modelling

 

Bazza

[RailWest]

One thing which you might like to consider when thinking about the loops, engine shed siding etc is what the engine movements to/from shed will be, and therefore which way would be the best for the connection to face.

 

Secondly, have you considered or not whether you want both or just one platform signalled for arrival/departure? The signalling of the old layout seems to have been rather odd, apparently with the box being reduced to a ground-frame in 1930. I am reminded of the situation at Bridgwater (North), where one platform face was arrival only and the other face was departure only, so every train had to be run-around and then shunted across to the other platform.

[wagonman]

One thing which you might like to consider when thinking about the loops, engine shed siding etc is what the engine movements to/from shed will be, and therefore which way would be the best for the connection to face.

 

Secondly, have you considered or not whether you want both or just one platform signalled for arrival/departure? The signalling of the old layout seems to have been rather odd, apparently with the box being reduced to a ground-frame in 1930. I am reminded of the situation at Bridgwater (North), where one platform face was arrival only and the other face was departure only, so every train had to be run-around and then shunted across to the other platform.

 

At Bridgwater (and Seaton for that matter) the incoming train had to be propelled out of the platform for the engine to run round so pushing it back into the other platform for departure was no big deal, if a trifle unnecessary. I don't have a signalling diagram for the early station though the later one was signalled for arrivals and departures from either platform.

 

If push comes to shove you could always ask Simon Harris of the B&WWMRC...