Brighton Trafalgar - An Edwardian LB&SCR Terminus

[Budgie]

8 hours ago, Matloughe said:

 

If I may ask, what are the origin of your signals shown here?
I am trying to sort out a starter & shunt for my own layout and I am trying to ascertain what others have used to represent LBSCR Signals.
The layout is fantastic - I always enjoy a trip here.

Kind Regards,
Gary

 

Those signals were made by Crescent Toys, and you can find them on Ebay.

 

[Lacathedrale]

Yes, there's a proper signalling diagram earlier developed for the DC control panel with help from @Regularity earlier in the thread. I am well aware this thread is quite verbose. If readers would prefer I keep it quiet and only update with significant progress, that's no skin off my nose - thoughts?

 

For the platform surfaces, period photographs show 3' flagstones either side of a pale, smooth surface:

I don't think it's necessary to represent texture as much as colour here, so thoughts and opinions on smoothing over the surface of the foamboard BEFORE I irrevocably glue it to the baseboard would be appreciated.

 

In the back platform you can see the distinctive platform overhanging edges of the platforms, seen on the right here in more detail: 

 

 

Again, it feels like this more of a question of colour and tone than texture particularly - but maybe a couple of narrowing strips of brick-embossed styrene (4 courses and 3 courses each, respecctively) might do it?

 

And, presumably I'll need to trim back my platforms so that the overhang of both the brick overhang and the flagstones is accounted for...

[Compound2632]

51 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

If readers would prefer I keep it quiet and only update with significant progress, that's no skin off my nose - thoughts?

 

One posts primarily for one's own satisfaction. 

[Andy_C]

55 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

If readers would prefer I keep it quiet and only update with significant progress, that's no skin off my nose - thoughts?

Threads like this are a sort of story/blog to me. They catalogue certain points the OP feels worthy of sharing regarding their layout development. For example, I've no idea who finds my musings on 'Mansfield, a slow burner' interesting, other than it seems lots of folk are viewing it. Questions asked get very sporadic responses - such is the nature of forums of any type.

 

As for verbose, I think your tone is your tone. It certainly doesn't bother me.

 

Cheers,

 

Andy.

[Nick C]

It's your thread, you should post as much or as little as you like... 

[magmouse]

39 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

One posts primarily for one's own satisfaction. 

 

21 minutes ago, Nick C said:

It's your thread, you should post as much or as little as you like... 

 

Yes to both of these comments, but... satisfaction may come, at least partly, from knowing other people are reading and find the content interesting and of value in some way. The question about form and frequency seems to me to be a legitimate one, and I'll answer it - I enjoy following your topic, William, because I like to get an insight into your thought processes as well as seeing the results. So I have no problems with musings, diversions, questions and the like, as well as the concrete progress reports. So don't feel under pressure to post, but do know that it is valued when you do.

 

Nick.

[Schooner]

1 hour ago, magmouse said:

I enjoy following your topic, William, because I like to get an insight into your thought processes as well as seeing the results.

 

Wot 'e sed 👆

[Matloughe]

Thank you for the signal info - I have gone and had a look.

I am uncertain if I could build the Wizard/MSE models kits at the moment - but certainly for the future maybe!
Although not the same, I am using some laser cut large pavers to form the edges of my platform and I am planning to infill with an aggregate of some sort, Pavers will also be under my small station building and at the entrace to the platform. But my station is no-where near as grand as this - its purely for some of the rural folk to go up to Lunnon or down to Brighton. I did consider planking my platforms - but I have enough shades of brown on my layout currently I don't want or need any more!!

Update as/when you feel like, its your model. And you have a captive audience here to view your work.
Kind Regards,
Gary

[ChrisN]

I agree with what others have said about posting, but the advantage of doing the way you are at the moment is as has been said it shows your thought processes, which may help others, and if you are halfway through something someone might say, 'No, that will not work!', or similar.  To post just when things are done, is neither interesting to those who read nor helpful to them or you.

 

I know posting takes time though.

[ianathompson]

17 hours ago, Budgie said:

Those signals were made by Crescent Toys, and you can find them on Ebay.

 

Thanks for that.

I had a set as a kid but I had forgotten who made them.

My latest N gauge signals are similar in terms of crudity but I had attributed them to Timpo rather than Crescent.

 

Ian T

[Lacathedrale]

A full set of bogie coaches waits on platform 2 in the summer of 1912:

 

 

A slightly less stylised view of the same:

 

 

Brake Third +  Third + Third + 1st-2nd Composite + Brake Second - the two all Thirds are Ratio Midland carriages, the rest are my Triang conversions. I've got the roofs smoothed out and some gloss varnish applied to the sides, but I'm not 100% happy with the finish (it's a bit orange peely at close observation). That said, I thought it would be nice to get all the carriages together.

 

I have a palette of train formations pulled from the 1906/1908 allocations of 3-5 coaches per train, but annoyingly none of them match up to the stock I have completely. I have highlighted in green the coaches that I have or which technically need work but can be used, and red which I think will be my next focus in this area:

 

Representative Coach Formations based on real sets:

• Set 7/78/85- Brighton to Haywards Heath/East Coast way: BT (using Brake Second), LC, C, BT
• Set 17 - Brighton Limited - BS (using Brake Third), LF, Pullman, BS
• Set 31 - London to Brighton - 6C (needs re-lettering to First-Second), C, T, 6B (needs repainting to umber)
• Set 3a - London Bridge to Brighton - BLT (using Brake Second), LC, BT, T
• Set 27 - London Bridge to Brighton - BS, LF, Pullman, BT
• City Limited - LF, Pullman, BS
• Boat Train: BS, C, LC, C, B
• Honor Oak Park - BT, C, B, 6CCT, 6NPV
• Suburban: BT (using Brake Second), T, C, BT
• Motor Rail Brighton: 54' DT, Terrier
• Motor Rail Balham: 6BT, Terrier, 54' DT
• Motor Rail Haywards Heath: 54' DT, T, D-class

 

1. It seems that a 54' Driving Trailer would make sense as first priority, since the one vehicle will permit a whole train by itself.
2. A Lav-First and a Pullman would let me run the City/Brighton Limited services. The extra BS on the Brighton Limited (versus the City Limited in the other direction) is because the brake was slipped at Haywards Heath AFAIK. 
3. A Lav-Composite and a Full Brake would allow me to a baggage/parcels train (seen at Honor Oak) and a much abbreviated Boat train. The CCT and NPV for the baggage train could be fun conversions/kitbuilds.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Lacathedrale

[Lacathedrale]

I have done a little mockup of the platform edging and surface:

 

 

The brick is Vallejo terracotta with a drybrush of terracotta + warm grey, umber wash. Paving is warm grey and the platform surface is beige. In B&W photos it seems like it might be darker but I don't want to go too saturated and I'm not sure what colour it should be...

 

 

[ianathompson]

I an certainly no LBSC expert, so I might well be displaying my ignorance, but here goes!

 

Would the preGrouping platform be as high as your modelled section?

Most preGrouping platforms seem to have been much lower than modern practice, hence the footboards on the stock.

 

There might, of course, have been differences between termini and wayside stations where the platforms tended to be lower.

 

Ian T

[Nick C]

55 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

I an certainly no LBSC expert, so I might well be displaying my ignorance, but here goes!

 

Would the preGrouping platform be as high as your modelled section?

Most preGrouping platforms seem to have been much lower than modern practice, hence the footboards on the stock.

 

There might, of course, have been differences between termini and wayside stations where the platforms tended to be lower.

 

Ian T

I agree - certainly no more than 3", more likely 2'6" - you can see from the photos of Brighton further up the page that there's a big step up, just look at the height of the guy's knee compared with floor level of the Pullman car.

 

I think they've been raised quite a bit subsequently - if you look at earlier photos, the overhang brickwork is just below the slabs, wheras in the photo with the modern EMU above you san see a substantial gap between them - looks like two extra courses of brick on top of the original platform. In the photo of P2 at the bottom of this page you can see that the top two courses of brick are much cleaner than the rest, so probably much newer - it's also fairly clear in this photo from NR.

[Andy_C]

This was pointed out to me by a friend, when I was checking platform heights for my layout(Mansfield, in the early 60's). Photos from the era confirmed this.

[Lacathedrale]

You're absolutely correct - please note that my test piece is sitting ONTOP of the foam roadbed, whereas the platforms proper are sitting on the baseboard yielding a height of 11.5mm/34" above the railhead. I was posting that picture of the platform section in context. I did have a little panic before I remembered it was on the roadbed though! Here are some shots with the platform (made a little more pale with a grey drybrush and darkening the gravel surface) at the correct height relative to the railhead but really I'm more focused on colour and texture - I'm quite happy with it, I think:

 

 

With regard to the platform height, the one depicted above shows a gap between the bottom of the soleboar and the top of the platform, which I think is roughly equivalent to that in the photographs above. I could make it a little more prominent by reducing one of the 10mm layers to 8mm total. Here's a comparison between my planned/original 2'10", and a lower 2'4" :

 

2'4" 

 

2'10"

 

I was initially skeptical of the lower height, but I think it actually works better and shows off the frames/wheels/irons/etc. a bit more - important since so much of the layout is platforms! I would appreciate some thoughts

[Nick Holliday]

I would agree that, originally, most platforms were 2' 6" or less above rail level, and, although recommendations for higher levels such as 3' 0" were made subsequently, there doesn't seem to have been any legislation in place to require changes to be made retrospectively.  It would seem that 3' 6" would have been a typical height for a loading platform, as that would give sufficient room for a drop-flap to be opened and usable as a ramp into the wagon, whilst end loading docks were more likely to be around 4' 0" so that there was just clearance over the buffers.  This fllickr photo of Gargrave on the Settle and Carlisle line shows a rather extreme survivor, which, if modelled, would engender plenty of comments.

 

As for the actual platform edging, I can't vouch for the main platforms at Brighton itself, but a very common sight on the LBSCR was the use of Staffordshire Blue Bull-nose edgings like this, 18" long, and 6" wide and deep:

At least one platform at Brighton had such edging, with a fair amount of the single's skirt showing:

 

[Worsdell forever]

Why have one height when you could have two?

 

 

From - http://disused-stations.org.uk/s/settrington/index.shtml

[Lacathedrale]

I hadn't really thought about height variation too much before these posts but it's a great point - especially given how much of the station is platforms.

 

The foreground dock platform could slope up from the concourse height (2'4") to 3'6" with a 4' ramp at the end for the end-loading section. This would also give a step down in the surface for a cab stand in the foreground too. 

 

I think I would want to keep the island platform low, so as to block as little view as possible of the rear roads.

 

The rear platform then would be a contender for a raised surface - but I was planning on putting offices/store rooms/etc. on the rear wall - and presumably if the platform was raised these would have to be rebuilt? 

[Nick Holliday]

24 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

I hadn't really thought about height variation too much before these posts but it's a great point - especially given how much of the station is platforms.

 

The foreground dock platform could slope up from the concourse height (2'4") to 3'6" with a 4' ramp at the end for the end-loading section. This would also give a step down in the surface for a cab stand in the foreground too. 

 

I think I would want to keep the island platform low, so as to block as little view as possible of the rear roads.

 

The rear platform then would be a contender for a raised surface - but I was planning on putting offices/store rooms/etc. on the rear wall - and presumably if the platform was raised these would have to be rebuilt? 

If you mean that, in real life the buildings would have been adapted/rebuilt to suit the raised platform level, that is not necessarily the case.  There are a number of stations, although none springs to mind at the moment, where the platform has been raised at some time, and access to the old building is via a well with steps up, which would be even more acceptable if the buildings were offices, as it would be railway staff who were inconvenienced.

[J-Mo Arts]

If I'm honest I prefer the 2'10" platform height. It looks closer to that in the shot of the G and also this

Where the top of the platform seems to be just below the buffer height on the coach? 

 

Perhaps as this is a terminus you're modelling it's more likely to have more 'modern' taller platforms? 

 

Go with what you like though, I'm by no means an expert! 

Edited June 14, 2023 by J-Mo Arts

[Lacathedrale]

I wonder if the bull-nose edging was part of the original platforms, and the wide pavers added when they were extended. The platform the Single is pictured at above is Platform 10, which was left outside the main trainshed as far as I know. It is pictured far left in this photograph.

 

 

It looks like the platform which extends into the foreground has the bullnose blocks on them. The fantastic book Brighton to Coulsdon South: A Signalling Perspective has a photo which looks supiciously contemporary to the above, and would appear to confirm that:

 

 

The pixel height of the block is 32px (6") and the height of the man (expected 170cm) is 340px, and the height of the platform to is 150px. - which makes it 2'6".

 

The rebuilt/newer platforms are clearly taller slghtly taller and use those pavers, though I couldn't prove it: I don't expect to see a rail-side view of Platform 10 from this period to count bricks as it was opposite the loco sheds. Steps down into the offices is a fantastic idea though, and so I think i will have the rear platform at 3' with pavers. It is also the longest platform on my layout so that also matches up well.

 

[Andy_C]

This is an image of the station I’m modelling my N Gauge layout on. Gives you an idea of platform height. This station was originally built in the 1870’s.

[Lacathedrale]

@J-Mo Arts lovely picture - it's of the era of my station but do bear in mind that Brighton was extensively rebuilt in the 1880's, and I'm trying to straddle the era between the 1850's and 1880's version of the station so it's not a done deal. That said, @Andy_C does illustrate stations from the intermediate period had similar platform heights. 

 

By the way, I was a little surprised to see what looks like a giant coal bin at the end of the platforms beyond the clock-tower in the older photos. The big space in the middle was originally for two sidings.

 

Another early picture, this time of Victoria - shows the platform surface a few inches below the bottom of the solebars, where the footboards are located in this era. This has got to be quite early too - note the three compartment 'horse-carriage' style coach on the right:

 

Edited June 15, 2023 by Lacathedrale

[ChrisN]

6 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

I hadn't really thought about height variation too much before these posts but it's a great point - especially given how much of the station is platforms.

 

The foreground dock platform could slope up from the concourse height (2'4") to 3'6" with a 4' ramp at the end for the end-loading section. This would also give a step down in the surface for a cab stand in the foreground too. 

 

I think I would want to keep the island platform low, so as to block as little view as possible of the rear roads.

 

The rear platform then would be a contender for a raised surface - but I was planning on putting offices/store rooms/etc. on the rear wall - and presumably if the platform was raised these would have to be rebuilt? 

 

On the Cambrian I can tell you what happen.  (I know the Cambrian is not the LBSCR, but it had less money so it only did what it had to do.)

 

It built its platforms low, when constructed in the 1860s.  When I looked at Barmouth and other stations the platform surface went directly with no steps into the station building.  This gives the impression that it was originally built at the correct height.  When you stand on the platform, at Barmouth and Porthmadog there is a noticeable slope backwards from the platform edge so the front of the platform is at the correct modern height.  When you look at the platforms from the end, it is clear that there is a layer of stone at the bottom topped with a newer layer of brick.  When you look at photos from around the turn of the 19th century they have already begun to raise the height but not to where it is today.

 

New platforms would have been built to the latest correct height.