A rural Sussex BLT

[dseagull]

After several years of false starts, I hope to finally be in a position to get something started within the next few months when a shed arrives at Chez Seagull.

It will be 12' x 8', and given that it will have other duties, space will be limited to a terminus to fiddle yard cameo-style layout, with the fiddle yard ensuring the whole thing will form an 'L' shape thanks to some prosaic if brutal second radius curves. 4mm Peco Bullhead I suspect (my soldering isn't up to much). The off-scene curves shown are Peco Setrack to make sure I kept things in the correct space.

 

Many years ago I planned an entire line as a 'might have been; https://www.rmweb.co.uk/blogs/entry/11576-a-journey-down-the-cuckmere-valley-line-station-by-station/ - and ever since I have been keen to continue with it. This will be rural Sussex, in the immediate years/months before WW1, named for, if geographically ignorant of, Litlington.

 

I've borrowed heavily from elsewhere - the Rice trick of a runaround loop prior to the platforms (and yes the single slip is a deliberate nod to the great man as well), but was also inspired by @Harlequin's lovely plan for 'Bucklecombe'(https://www.rmweb.co.uk/gallery/image/91869-bucklecombe-a-bucolic-blt/?context=new )

 

There are too things I wanted; a sense of a space, a river crossing, and a healthy chunk of the village beyond the railway (built for the pleasure of building as much as, and probably more so, operation).

There are compromises from my original plan - ideally, I would have a through track to access the goods only branch to Cuckmere Haven, but I can always claim that connection is off stage with trains required to run into the station to reverse due to the alignment of the line.

 

Passenger services enter stage right, running into the platform before being propelled back, where the loco runs round via the dock and loop before setting back into the platform. Goods services do this in reverse - running into the loop, before shunting takes place - the cattle dock and the 'goods shed' siding accessed first, before wagons for the factory are pushed into the siding.

 

I apologise in advance that my drawing skills required use of XTrkCad, but at least I know it will fit, although it's all a bit straight and clinical at the moment. I know there are one or two cliches and as for the plan itself; I am posting here as I am very open to suggestions.

 

The buildings shown are placeholders; A lot of brick and flint buildings (very common in these parts and similar to those in the below picture) are planned to instil a sense of place, whilst the school will also be scratchbuilt and inspired by the former one at Ripe Google Street View. The factory is planned as very much a secondary form of traffic, a glimpse at some imagined local industry to ensure things don't get too 'chocolate box'. The goods shed is overkill for such a small location and is unlikely to appear, but has been left in for planning purposes so I didn't get too carried away.

 

 

Cottages at Strettington Lane
cc-by-sa/2.0 - © Chris Shaw - geograph.org.uk/p/19166

 

This will be a bit of a slow burner - Very much open to suggestion and improvement, hence posting here.

 

[DCB]

# Harlequin's plan is a good starting point, but you need to look closely at it and plan how the trains will operate, 

In your plan about 5 goods wagons or one coach looks like the maximum which can be run round because of the left hand end points being the wrong way round.  The loop should connect to the platform. As drawn the engine has to be in the loop with the wagons before moving into the cattle dock to run round.

My doodle shows my BLT "Haddenhoe" pretty much overlaid on your layout.  It takes an 0-6-0 tender loco, but not a 2-6-0 and 4 57ft coaches in a length of 7ft over the points and 8ft over baseboard.  Usual train is 2 coaches, The cattle dock and kick back sidings have been taken out of use this season as they were not very useful and keeping the points working (its pretty much outside) is challenging,  It takes about 14 wagons in the loop so every now and again  I run 18 wagon trains to keep it interesting.

2nd radius curves are not a great idea,  I find new Bachmann 0-6-0s don't like them and derail, old worn ones are fine  3rd radius and 2ft points (I prefer 3ft)  make running much more reliable.

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by DCB

[dseagull]

Thanks for the feedback!

 

My (virtual) testing shows that the top loop fits 0-6-0 (Jinty - I haven't 'created' a Terrier or E1 on XtrkCad yet!) plus 4 x Hattons/Hornby 4 Wheel Coaches (or 3 6 wheelers). The bottom loop fits Loco + 8 x 4 wheel wagons/vans.

 

You raise a good point about the curves and as third radius would fit, will look to put them in instead.

 

Will have another doodle this evening

[dseagull]

Couple more variants. I like the idea of the road raising up as it runs along the back towards the factory/river. The symbol on V3 is supposed to represent this, forgot to add to V2!

 

V2

 

• Extra Siding in yard
• End curves changed to third radius
• Loop fits loco + 4 6 wheelers very comfortably, loco + 7 wagons just about
• All original scenic features retained
• Uses 1 more set of points than V1

 

V3

• Extra Siding in yard
• End curves changed to third radius
• Loop fits loco + 4 6 wheelers very comfortably, loco + 8 wagons just about
• All original scenic features retained
• Slip (now double) retained. Uses one less set of points than V1.

 

[Nearholmer]

Are we in the actual Cuckmere Valley here? If so, where are N, E, S & W in relation to the plan?

 

I ask, because if I could set the station in the scenery, I might have something useful to say (or, I might not).

 

In the meanwhile, here is a station of the right date and nature that is worth a study. If you google for photos, you will see that it isn’t like most model railway BLTs, which in my mind is A Good Thing.

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by Nearholmer

[dseagull]

2 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Are we in the Cuckmere Valley here? If so, where are N, E, S & W in relation to the plan?

 

I ask, because if I could set the station in the scenery, I might have something useful to say (or, I might not).

 

We were, but the a few comments previously have made me reconsider this - the original geography of a line running from Berwick through Alfriston to Litlington, then on to Seaford would require some pretty extreme civil engineering!

 

 

[Nearholmer]

High and Over sort of civil engineering, or maybe Low and Under.

 

The real proposal involved going to the pumping station in Friston Bottom, with an extension proposed via tunnel to reach the valley to Burling Gap. I think a tunnel actually exists to take water pipes towards Eastbourne, so that making a railway tunnel was a variant of that scheme.

 

Personally, I think you should stay in the real valley, to get that “anchoring n place” that makes for characterful layouts.

 

PS: your initial track plan looked a bit Hemyock too, which is another nicely untypical case.

 

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by Nearholmer

[dseagull]

Thanks for that, much appreciated. Certainly food for thought....

[phil_sutters]

For those unfamiliar with the Cuckmere valley south of Alfriston. Seaford lies over the hill descriptively named High and Over.

There are plenty more views in this album http://www.ipernity.com/doc/philsutters/album/502159

[phil_sutters]

You could go down the west side of the Ouse valley, from Lewes. I have thought that a tramway or light railway down there might venture through Rodmell, Southease* and end at a wharf at Piddinghoe or continue to the western side of Newhaven, previously called Meeching. That could have been absorbed by the LBSCR.

* The Seaford branch Southease station is on the opposite side of the river, quite a walk from the village.

[DCB]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

In the meanwhile, here is a station of the right date and nature that is worth a study. If you google for photos, you will see that it isn’t like most model railway BLTs, which in my mind is A Good Thing.

 

 

Red Wharf Bay is quite a large station partly due to the loop being outside the main station area, not unusual, it saved width at the expense of increasing the length of the station, it had a 260 ft platform capable of holding  4 X 55 foot coaches. Scaling from the map it is over 1/4 mile long about 20 feet in 00  It's a very late light railway station some way from the nearest village where land was cheap and its 450 ft foot loop, was enough to run round  20 + Wagons     In OO scale chopping 5  feet out of the loop and 3 out of the platform gets it down to 12 feet at the expense of train length.  20 wagons down to 5.    Better examples of small Terminus stations are Cowes and especially Freshwater on the Isle of Wight.   Especially Freshwater, 

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by DCB

[burgundy]

You could also repopulate the lost village of Exceat as a justification for the line. 

Best wishes 

Eric 

[Nearholmer]

6 hours ago, DCB said:

Better examples of small Terminus stations

“Better” is, of course, purely a matter of opinion, rather than a place on an absolute scale from terrible to wonderful.

 

The reason I like the OP’s plan, and Red Wharf Bay, and Hemyock, and Callington, and a few others, is precisely because they have the platform beyond the loop. That arrangement is seldom used on model railway BLTs, most of which converge on the “runaround loop alongside the platform; fan of sidings to one side or the other” convention beloved of CJF, and common in reality …….. it’s realistic, efficient, and has become a bit hackneyed (IMO). It also pushes a lot of the shunting off-scene, which for no rational reason bothers me.

 

Naturally, in a short scene,  having the platform beyond the loop restricts train length, but that can be a virtue, because it makes the scene look bigger, added to which few things shout “light railway” or “early and never upgraded railway” more than restrictive track layouts and short trains.

 

If you haven’t already seen it, have a look at the layout “Old Parrock” as an example of something operationally restricted, but incredibly atmospheric and anchored in location, and in Sussex. Life can be about something other than trying to accommodate three bogie coaches and a small tender engine, excellent as that formula can be.

 

I might contend that having the platform beyond the loop is “better”, but that would only be in my opinion.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Matloughe]

Something to think about is also; if this is a line absorbed by the LB&SCR - then it wont necessarily conform to the Brighton Line's standards. For example, LBSCR Stations tend to have (if there is one) their Brick goods shed adjacent to the station buildings on a bay road - like at Steyning, Hailsham & Baynards for three examples off the top of my head.

I see you mentioned pre-WW1 so I am assuming the line was built in the late 1800's and was absorbed at the turn of the 1900's into the LBSCR to 'protect' its eastern territory from the encrochment by the South Eastern Railway. By that time you would be seeing LBSC features such as signalling, possibly rebuilt station buildings depending how temporary the originals were. I would look at your plans you've made and ask yourself some questions.
"Who was the line built for?"
"What industry exists (real or fictional) to need its own siding?"
"Where do the services go to?"

If I had to pick a plan. I'd probably go with your V2 plan; railways detested the extra maintaince of things like double slips etc so I would go with the two conventional points. I would swap the location of the cattle dock & goods shed like for like - the animals away from the refined Edwardian noses. I wonder if you need the gated siding at all... perhaps as a suggestion you do away with the private siding, and have a small engine shed for oustabling a Branchline engine - it did happen there were smaller sheds in some places which looked after their branch specific engine especially in the Victorian period. It might be especially useful for an ex Light-Railway as their former Headquarters.

Am going to follow this to see more!
Kind Regards,
Gary

[Nearholmer]

Another question, if I may: is this the CVLR as proposed in reality?

 

If it is, that gives us a construction date, and a good few hints about the style of construction that would have been adopted (= cheap), but still leaves a lot of freedom in terms of construction materials, layout etc. we might get more hints if we knew who the engineer for the line was, maybe one of the well known bods like Cadlick-Pain, Stephens etc, or maybe a LBSCR in-house job.

 

If it isn’t, then when was it built, and under what legal provisions, remembering that there were LR provisions earlier than 1896, giving rise to things like the Highworth and Hemyock Branches.

 

Final thought: E tanks were quite big and heavy, maybe as much as 16 ton axle weight, which is pretty chunky for LR practice, which tended to be 12 or lower, I think 8 for some early ones.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Nearholmer

[burgundy]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

If it isn’t, then when was it built, and under what legal provisions, remembering that there were LR provisions earlier than 1896, giving rise to things like the Highworth and Hemyock Branches.

Final thought: E tanks were quite big and heavy, maybe as much as 16 ton axle weight, which is pretty chunky for LR practice, which tended to be 12 or lower, I think 8 for some early ones.

As soon as you start building to light railway standards, Terriers are likely to be part of the answer. But the Brighton had other small tank engines and used them, for example, on the Hayling Island branch and around Newhaven Harbour.   

The Terrier is the large one. 

Best wishes 

Eric 

[phil_sutters]

12 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

If you haven’t already seen it, have a look at the layout “Old Parrock” as an example of something operationally restricted, but incredibly atmospheric and anchored in location, and in Sussex. Life can be about something other than trying to accommodate three bogie coaches and a small tender engine, excellent as that formula can be.

 

 

 

 

 

[Nearholmer]

3 hours ago, burgundy said:

But the Brighton had other small tank engines

I got the impression, maybe mistakenly, that the OP was intending to use r-t-r motive power, and in 00 I’m only aware of the Terrier as an animal with gentle enough paws for a LR railway set c1905.
 

It would get a bit easier in 0, I think, because iirc there is a MW K Class available, as well as a somewhat later Hudswell Clarke that would possibly be light enough.

 

PS: is it too much to hope that with a r-t-r E tank on the way, a D tank can’t be far behind. And, a balloon trailer???

 

PPS: Rocket, Lion, and Tiger would probably be light enough, but a tad implausible.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Nearholmer

[dseagull]

Thanks All.

 

The potted history starts here;

 

Hard to believe it's been 10 years since I wrote that!

 

At the same time, I did plot out an alternative route, leaving what is now the East Coastway between Polegate and Berwick (allowing a direct Seaford-Eastbourne service). The first bit of the line is fine, but the Litlington-Seaford stretch is the part that concerns me.

 

I would like to stick with the original rationale, the research of which was interesting, and provided plenty of plausible traffic, however the reason for shifting towards a BLT was two-fold;

 

1; Practicality; Will struggle to fit everything I want in otherwise!

2; Geography; As mentioned, heavy engineering would be needed to go over (or under!) to reach Seaford.

 

[phil_sutters]

What type of development is your branch going to serve? Newhaven had taken over from Seaford as the local port for both freight and passenger services well before the 18th century and was rail-connected from 1847. Cuckmere Haven is too isolated by steep hills on either side to have established itself as a seaside resort before the possibility of a rail connection. Indeed seaside resorts really only became viable when the railways arrived, but most had some existing industry, such as fishing, that had provided a reason for the community's development. The railway that did run down to the Haven was to bring shingle from the beach to the main road - A259 as it now is. There were several other shingle extraction sites along the coast, but none provided enough income to support a community.

Edited April 21, 2023 by phil_sutters

[dseagull]

1 minute ago, phil_sutters said:

What type of development is your branch going to serve? Newhaven had taken over from Seaford as the local port for both freight and passenger services well before the 18th century and was rail-connected from 1847. Cuckmere Haven is too isolated by steep hills on either side to have established itself as a seaside resort before the possibility of a rail connection. The railway that did run down to the Haven was to bring shingle from the beach to the main road - A259 as it now is.

 

As you will be aware, the LBSC used shingle from the Crumbles at Eastbourne as ballast. One of the main thoughts behind the initial plan was what if they also used shingle from the Haven, with a 'heavy' rain line instead of the narrow gauge one that actually existed. There were also various brickworks in the area, at least one with a narrow gauge line, and plentiful agricultural land (though quite what the Victorians would have made of the vineyard as you come out of Alfriston is anyone's guess!)

 

The whole thing is admittedly a little far fetched, but there were plenty of Victorian lines built off the back of boundless optimism! Basically, I just wanted something close to home, pretty but not too twee. I find it far easier to picture a layout when I actually know the area, as opposed to say, Fochabers (Town), another station I've looked at before (and even drew up scale plans for in 2mm before I decided my soldering skills were in no way up to it!) - very nice, and could make a great layout, but when you've never been north of York it is hard to get a proper 'feel' for it. 

 

[phil_sutters]

Another shingle 'quarry' line was the Newhaven East Quay branch and beach tramway. Thinking of that, albeit after your layout's era, Chailey Heritage in 1924 opened the Marine Hospital for boys recovering from operations, alongside the tramway. Perhaps Cuckmere's isolation could be put to advantage with a small institution for people with infectious diseases like TB, for which fresh air was deemed beneficial. Some investigation of the medical practices around your era would be needed to see if that would work.

Edited April 21, 2023 by phil_sutters

[Pebbles]

Cuckmere Haven had a long established industry "Smuggling !" hence the coast guard cottages overlooking the haven.  Any intrusion into the area bringing large numbers of people would most likely have been met with, at the very least, resistance. 

[Nearholmer]

Ah, OK, having read the history, I’m “on message” now: this isn’t the light railway, it’s an earlier conventional railway, presumably built to standards typical of the area, so able to accept engines typical of the area.

 

Industry? Lime and cement manufacture. The Cuckmere Valley only escaped this fate because of the pattern of land ownership, so in your alternative history disfiguring it with a big lime and cement works, plus ancillary industries like concrete block making, the manufacture of “patent stone” architectural features etc should keep everyone employed and create a lot of pollution.

 

Pity in a way. I think I prefer the impecunious light railway, and the place staying largely peaceful.

 

More of this:

 

 

Less of this:

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Nearholmer

[dseagull]

I completely agree, which is why I am quite open that, whilst you can never rule things out, it is a line that was highly unlikely to be built in this format in reality. Having scoured railway maps of (East) Sussex to look for a space where there weren't actually any lines, the only other one I can come up with is a Heathfield to somewhere near Battle line along the route of the present day B2096. There is no conceivable reason that such a route would have ever been considered, and still nowhere near enough traffic to make it viable now.

 

The industrial siding planned will not be a heavy industry - I was thinking a manufacturer of small goods (food related possibly) that has a need to get their wares out to hotels and shops across the country. There was, after all, a McDougalls Flour Mill at Horsebridge which saw a secondhand shed from Battersea goods yard relocated to Hellingly. As an alternative example, cricket bats are made in Robertsbridge , which could hardly be described as the land of dark satanic mills. Perhaps an enterprising Sussex trug manufacturer decided to take advantage of the railway being there?

 

Really, I just want a BLT in the local area. Nothing 'real' fits in the space available.

 

I want to run it with a couple of Terriers (and anything else that crops up - an E1 is likely, an E4 perhaps, nothing particularly big. Old, cascaded coaching stock (those 4 wheelers) and a dozen or so wagons. Motive power likely to be RTR, rolling stock less so, as I enjoy building wagon kits in particular. Yes, it would be easier to relocate it to a forgotten corner of Devon and employ a 14xx & autocoach/Pannier and B set, but as pretty as they can be, that doesn't particularly appeal. Turning the clock forward 5 decades to a 'last few years before closure' scenario could also be a consideration, and I've checked, the loops would also fit a couple of Mk1's. At the moment however I remain keener on umber, rather than grotty black.

 

I do apologise if the above comes across as snappy or ungrateful to anyone who has contributed so far, which wasn't my intention, as a lot of helpful and thought provoking comment has been made.

 

I've had another play with the plan and neatened it up a little, moving the cattle dock to the other side and reducing the previously bulbous loop to something which looks a bit better. Still allows for running around 4 coaches or 7 wagons on either side. I could carry the line on across the road, and given a bit more space, I would, but as there wouldn't be any space for anything to run off stage right in any case, it seems rather futile.

 

The original inspiration for the cattle pens being on that side and close to the station was, as it often is, Hailsham - you can just about see them in this Ian Nolan photo on Flickr (can't embed due to copyright) or this clearer one looking in the other direction. Incidentally the large wall holding up the station canopy, next to the parcels vans in the first linked photo, was the side wall of a single road engine shed which went very early (1880's I think). The wall remained until complete closure in 1968.

 

With slip (V5)

 

 

and without (V6)