Brighton Trafalgar - An Edwardian LB&SCR Terminus

[JohnR]

9 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Sanditon?

 

A current TV serial based on an unfinished manuscript by Jane Austin. It is set in a south coast resort that is developing as a result of the social changes of the late Georgian era. 

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, JohnR said:

 

A current TV serial based on an unfinished manuscript by Jane Austin. It is set in a south coast resort that is developing as a result of the social changes of the late Georgian era. 

 

Am aware. I thought it hadn't been mentioned, so was suggesting it, but reading @Lacathedrale's OP I see it has been. My apologies. My current layout, roughly Derbys/Notts, features Mansfield Woodhouse station (after my period, to be re-opened in the 1980s as Mansfield Parkway) and Lambton, junction for the Kympton branch.

 

I'm unsure whether Meryton is on either the Great Northern or Midland main line or on a branch off one or the other or both. Hartfield is obviously prime L&SWR territory.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Compound2632

[Lacathedrale]

After writing the justification for Brighton Victoria, and the research into Brighton coach rakes around 1908,  I realise that it provides a solid basis for a freelance terminus in broadly the same area and time. Westward we have LSWR services, Eastward we have the SECR ones - but the rest would remain the same, so I think I'll kick that can down the road a bit. I'm quite fond of the retaining wall arrangement for the throat of Central Croydon so I may well include that over the end of the layout...

 

 

G&H have come back with green lights for the baseboards - slightly extended from the above plan to 500m wide so that if the foreground carriage road is implemented, there's a bit of breathing room. They should be with me in 4-6 weeks, so in the meantime I can look at other bits and bobs for the layout. Maybe a signalbox? I think some structural modelling is well overdue...

Edited June 28, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[jamieb]

How about either Lindfield or Cuckfield? Both could be short branches off the Brighton main line with direct trains to London.

Historically,neither village wanted the railway running through them so the line was built through no man's land between the two and the town of Hayward's Heath sprung up around the railway 

[Lacathedrale]

@jamieb my local village is Lindfield, I'm just around the corner. I had considered some interpretation of events where the BML had ended up going through Lindfield, and the Ouse Valley Railway plan was implemented in reverse to connect up to Haywards Heath to Uckfield, etc. - but I couldn't make it work from a logical perspective, as mentioned earlier in the thread the LBSCR didn't really 'do' termini that weren't on the coast. If you have any thoughts on how a double track, passenger-only terminus could fit into the premise I would be all ears.

 

I think the main/only change would likely be the replacement of terraced housing and infrastructure behind the retaining wall, with an embankment and greenery.

 

@RailroadRich I'm not going to be changing the track plan at this late stage, but may well be worth looking at Twells for operational suggestions, so I'll get on that.

 

I have put my thumb in the air to determine how many levers we'd see at the Edwardian Terminus, then I reckon we've got about ten regular levers including two trap points, six FPLs, and about a dozen signals if we factor in ground-, shunt- and calling-on-signals. I reckon that whatever ends up in the foreground of the curve eventually will be ground frames. With that in mind, any suggestions for a 40ish lever signal box to model while I sit on my hands for baseboards to arrive? Looks like Littlehampton could be a good one!

Edited June 28, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[jamieb]

5 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

@jamieb my local village is Lindfield, I'm just around the corner. I had considered some interpretation of events where the BML had ended up going through Lindfield, and the Ouse Valley Railway plan was implemented in reverse to connect up to Haywards Heath to Uckfield, etc. - but I couldn't make it work from a logical perspective, as mentioned earlier in the thread the LBSCR didn't really 'do' termini that weren't on the coast. If you have any thoughts on how a double track, passenger-only terminus could fit into the premise I would be all ears.

 

 

 

@RailroadRich

As you know Lindfield,you'll be well aware of the expression 'money talks'! They might have been a bit NIMBY to begin with but would have soon realised the inconvenience of having to go via HH to reach London.

There would have been no need for a through line,just a direct connection to London,whether via the BML or via Ardingley and East Grinstead 

[C126]

Please forgive me for sounding as if I am 'blowing my own trumpet' - and without the maps (to be restored) it is a little more difficult to imagine - but the kind contributions to my layout's location might be of interest:

 

I wanted a 2-platform terminus on the High Weald, with the conceit of it being a meeting-place of rival railway companies, my 'Victoria' station being the late arrival to the town.  Hope it is of interest.

Edited June 28, 2022 by C126

[Lacathedrale]

Stock

LBSCR E4 No. 579 ex-"Roehampton" was built in July 1903. It was allocated to New Cross in 1911 after recieving its "L B S C" umber livery, so it must be working returning from a transfer trip between Brighton Goods and Brighton Victoria after the journey down from the big smoke...

 

 

Baseboards

The G&H baseboards order has gone through. I decided to bump up the width from 450mm to 500mm wide to give space for the carriage siding and cobbled area suggested by @Regularity and to break up all the parallelism a little. I have double checked this should fit in the back of my VW Golf!

 

Brighton Victoria 1.1-kinked-slip

 

I have shortened the platforms to end on the layout board breaks, the resultant space between the platform lines for water cranes, signal posts, the main WT being at the end of the loco pilot spur, to provide a view block between the end of the station and the retaining wall. 

 

My view on the two additional sidings is that it visually balances the throat, and though there's a fair amount of track at that point, with the additional width I don't think it's overbearing. I particularly like that it enables the on-layout storage of carriages in the 'phase 1' form, and some defined locations for carriage trucks, horseboxes and parcels trains - not strictly required but a source of justified shunting? I'm leaning towards their inclusion of these two extra sidings, but any thoughts gladly taken. It ends up being a bad idea, then the bit of open land in the foreground won't hurt. 

 

For reference, this is without:

Brighton Victoria 1.0-linear

 

Setting

@C126 a captivating setting - I'm going to kick the can down the road a bit further, no nameplates or signs until I've figured out exactly what's going on with the location.

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[Flying Pig]

20 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

I have shortened the platforms to end on the layout board breaks, the resultant space between the platform lines for water cranes, signal posts, the main WT being at the end of the loco pilot spur, to provide a view block between the end of the station and the retaining wall. 

 

 

Platform 2 looks fine like that, but imo Platform 1 is asking to be extended as in version 1.0.  To me, cutting the station off straight rather telegraphs its shortness and the platform end itself is something of a separate scene from the inner part of the station.

 

BTW, I would extend the carriage dock alongside the siding to deal with horses.  If I was feeling greedy I might convert the rather short carriage siding to a perishables dock which would give another source of tail traffic.  You'd need lots of empty stock  workings, but that's part of the fun.

[Regularity]

Just a thought, William, but the pregrouping railways tended have more pointwork than nowadays, as we have discussed, to allow for moves simultaneous moves. If you added the crossover marked in blue, then trains can depart from platform 2 whilst another arrives in platform 3.

[Lacathedrale]

Structural Mockups

I've made some mockups for the prototype structures I'm thinking of including:

 

 

The signal box prototype is of Littlehampton, a typical LBSCR box built 1901.The box is still extant and in use (with some nearby SR rail-built semaphores!). The lever frame is at the rear, which contains 44 levers which I estimate to be about the right amount for BV. It is approximately 22' x 12' and 17'6" to the eaves.

 

The water tower is an example from Sheffield Park, which I initially picked because it was the only one I could find on LBSCR territory - but I realise it may well have been a transplant rather than original. It is 22' x 14' and the brick base is 24' high. The tank ontop overhangs, with a capacity of about 20,000 imperial gallons.

 

Scratchbuilding help?

I have no idea how to scratchbuild these in plasticard though. Slaters flemish bond plasticard for the main structure and presumably Wills arches for the arches - but I can't find any normal windows to match the window arches? Similarly, I can't find any etched  windows which are even remotely close to the Littlehampton box style of four-pane, 5'4 x 3'2. Oh well!

 

Trackplan

P1 extension sounds fairly reasonable to me, @Flying Pig.  Some interesthing permutations to play with. I had not thought about a perishables dock.

 

 

 

[Regularity]

5 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

I have no idea how to scratchbuild these in plasticard though. Slaters flemish bond plasticard for the main structure and presumably Wills arches for the arches - but I can't find any normal windows to match the window arches? Similarly, I can't find any etched  windows which are even remotely close to the Littlehampton box style of four-pane, 5'4 x 3'2. Oh well!

Build a basic box for the structure in whatever materials you like, and clad it with brickwork. I prefer the SE Finecast bricks myself.

As for the windows, you can get them laser-cut in card, and possibly some form of plastic, to order from a variety of suppliers.

[Lacathedrale]

@Regularity that is a fair point, I had not seen that connection either. It does add a pretty groovy S-curve though:

 

 

The four extra point and FPL levers just about fit into the LH frame, to no dramas there!

[Nick C]

5 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Scratchbuilding help?

I have no idea how to scratchbuild these in plasticard though. Slaters flemish bond plasticard for the main structure and presumably Wills arches for the arches - but I can't find any normal windows to match the window arches? Similarly, I can't find any etched  windows which are even remotely close to the Littlehampton box style of four-pane, 5'4 x 3'2. Oh well!

 

There are a couple of kits around for Drayton 'box, which is a smaller Saxby & Farmer design - which could be cut-n-shut to make a bigger box, more like Lewes than Littlehampton, but a design that, to me at least, really screams LBSCR!

[t-b-g]

Could two of these be "cut and shut" into a bigger box? I don't know enough about LBSCR signal boxes to know if they had a longer version of this design, or if it is the right design or period. It has bags of character.

 

https://railmodel.co.uk/collections/00-gauge-4mm/products/drayton-signal-box-4mm

[Lacathedrale]

Thanks @Nick C - I guess you mean RailModel?

 

I had al ook at the drayton box and it seems to be OK  @t-b-g - but I wonder if https://railmodel.co.uk/collections/frontpage/products/leamington-south-junction-signal-box-4mm might be more appropriate? It would need new windows, but other than that appears to be a good match if slightly larger? i could cut it down to the same size as the LH box by chopping down alongside the third window in the base, but then would also need a new roof and at that point I guess I may as well scratchbuild?

[t-b-g]

33 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

@Regularity that is a fair point, I had not seen that connection either. It does add a pretty groovy S-curve though:

 

 

The four extra point and FPL levers just about fit into the LH frame, to no dramas there!

 

I like the extra crossover. The only thing that I might consider changing is to curve the carriage dock road gently and swing it away from Pl 3 towards the corner of the board. That would allow a platform that goes around both sides of the dock and the end. Horse boxes often had a partition down the centre and being able to unload from both sides was useful. It also gives you an end loading facility for carriage trucks and would allow the siding to be longer. It also breaks up the tracks all running pretty much straight along the board, so adds something visually.

 

You could then add more length to the carriage siding too.

 

The area marked "cobbled area" could make a nice loading dock for the nearby market, so fish and meat vans as well as general good vehicles could be sent there for unloading but shunting it is a bit awkward. I can't see an easy way of dealing with a brake van! 

[t-b-g]

19 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Thanks @Nick C - I guess you mean RailModel?

 

I had al ook at the drayton box and it seems to be OK  @t-b-g - but I wonder if https://railmodel.co.uk/collections/frontpage/products/leamington-south-junction-signal-box-4mm might be more appropriate? It would need new windows, but other than that appears to be a good match if slightly larger? i could cut it down to the same size as the LH box by chopping down alongside the third window in the base, but then would also need a new roof and at that point I guess I may as well scratchbuild?

 

I have just noticed that the Drayton kit had already been mentioned, so apologies for duplicating.

 

I have always found that things like signalboxes and signals are very specific to a particular railway company. I looked at the Leamington Box and it just shouts Great Western at me.

 

So my preference would be to go the extra mile to get one that is correct for your period and company rather than get a near enough one and alter some details. But that is just me! Some folk are happy with "near enough".

 

Making windows is not that difficult. I usually draw the windows out, tape clear plastic to the drawing, scribe a groove with an OLFA cutter, paint with suitable colour acrylics and scrape the excess off with a fingernail. I then add an outer frame from Evergreen strip or similar. This is my LD&ECR one for Sheffield Attercliffe. You should check the brick bonding before buying some in. English Bond was by far the most common for railway buildings in that sort of period.

 

 

[Nick C]

15 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Thanks @Nick C - I guess you mean RailModel?

 

I had al ook at the drayton box and it seems to be OK  @t-b-g - but I wonder if https://railmodel.co.uk/collections/frontpage/products/leamington-south-junction-signal-box-4mm might be more appropriate? It would need new windows, but other than that appears to be a good match if slightly larger? i could cut it down to the same size as the LH box by chopping down alongside the third window in the base, but then would also need a new roof and at that point I guess I may as well scratchbuild?

There's also this one: http://www.amodelrailway.uk/contents/en-uk/d16_LB_SCR_Signal_Box.html - which being print-at-home, might be easier to adapt?

 

IMHO the Leamington one looks GWR. The Littlehampton one has a very distinctive overhang, so would need a new roof as you say, so you'd end up only using the base, which is probably the easiest bit to scratchbuild!

 

Signal boxes are on of those things that, to me, really 'set' the location of a layout - they're always, by their very nature, in a very distinct place, out in the open. This page has some good photos of the different styles used by the Brighton: https://signalbox.org/photo-gallery/london-brighton-south-coast-railway/ - plus if you don't have it, Pryer's Pictorial Record of Southern Signals. 

 

 

[t-b-g]

3 minutes ago, Nick C said:

There's also this one: http://www.amodelrailway.uk/contents/en-uk/d16_LB_SCR_Signal_Box.html - which being print-at-home, might be easier to adapt?

 

IMHO the Leamington one looks GWR. The Littlehampton one has a very distinctive overhang, so would need a new roof as you say, so you'd end up only using the base, which is probably the easiest bit to scratchbuild!

 

Signal boxes are on of those things that, to me, really 'set' the location of a layout - they're always, by their very nature, in a very distinct place, out in the open. This page has some good photos of the different styles used by the Brighton: https://signalbox.org/photo-gallery/london-brighton-south-coast-railway/ - plus if you don't have it, Pryer's Pictorial Record of Southern Signals. 

 

 

 

At that price you could use it as a drawing/template for cladding in plasticard.

[Lacathedrale]

I actually have Pryor's book - but I also have dimensioned drawings of the LH box (and being a contemporary south coast LBSCR box of equivalent size I felt it was the most appropriate). I'm very up for scratchbuilding, and ideally would like to go that route. I guess I can use @t-b-g's scribing method on arched windows under the signalbox as well as the signal box panes themselves....

 

 

The problem with widening the track plan much more (i.e. with the angled dock) is that while I have a few inches to play with in the background, I can't really shift everything back, because iit then limits the traverser travel, which is already offset to the rear by 50mm.  Your thoughts however, have suggested this might be a more suitable allocation to the sidings:

 

Brighton Victoria 1.1b - Carriage swap and angled dock

 

I think it might be half a dozen of one versus six of another - the carriage sidings are in a slightly less usable location, requiring a reversing move by the train engine, or a runaround by the pilot - but the other siding is now usable as a perishables/horse/loading-dock. Maybe an idea to just leave them both as flat expanses for now, and see which moves are more annoying operationally? :)

 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[t-b-g]

4 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

I actually have Pryor's book - but I also have dimensioned drawings of the LH box (and being a contemporary south coast LBSCR box of equivalent size I felt it was the most appropriate). I'm very up for scratchbuilding, and ideally would like to go that route. I guess I can use @t-b-g's scribing method on arched windows under the signalbox as well as the signal box panes themselves....

 

 

The problem with widening the layout much, is that while I have a few inches to play with in the background, I can't really shift everything back, because iit then limits the traverser travel, which is already offset to the rear by 50mm.  Your thoughts however, have suggested this might be a more suitable allocation to the sidings:

 

Brighton Victoria 1.1b - Carriage swap and angled dock

 

I think it might be half a dozen of one versus six of another - the carriage sidings are in a slightly less usable location, requiring a reversing move by the train engine, or a runaround by the pilot - but the other siding is now usable as a perishables/horse/loading-dock. Maybe an idea to just leave them both as flat expanses for now, and see which moves are more annoying operationally? :)

 

 

I think that the carriage siding in that position is rather too difficult to access. If you lost the carriage siding (which is too short to be much use anyway) and use it as a headshunt, that would allow a shunter to sort the horseboxes and tail loads out without blocking the main line.

[Flying Pig]

8 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

 

I think it might be half a dozen of one versus six of another - the carriage sidings are in a slightly less usable location

 

You could easily do without carriage sidings altogether and just run empty stock offscene to imaginary carriage sidings.  What you have anyway is rather restricted in length as well as tricky to access if you use the kickback.

[Lacathedrale]

OK, failed experiment then. The original plan of the carriage sidings/loading dock in the foreground-middle, and nothing on the headshunt/cobbled area makes the most sense. If the loading dock or cleaner's walkway is off-scene to the front of the layout, I can figure out what works as I go along.

[Regularity]

39 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

The problem with widening the track plan much more (i.e. with the angled dock) is that while I have a few inches to play with in the background, I can't really shift everything back, because iit then limits the traverser travel, which is already offset to the rear by 50mm. 

Nothing says that the track has to be square to the board ends, and you could rotate the layout slightly to create more space at the rear.