Nick Holliday

Those drawings only show the extension of the platforms, and contain nothing appertaining to the new station buildings, as sought.

I’m afraid I think my comments might have thrown a spanner into the works, but I’m now chucking in a complete toolbox, with a few suggestions:- Rather than having a continuous circuit on which most trains circulate forever in the same direction, why not take advantage of the ability of N Gauge stock to negotiate fairly tight radius curves, and have return loops of around 3 foot diameter at opposite ends. (The EEMRC layout Hinksey Yard is only 2’ 9” wide, and the curves at each end don’t cause many problems.) This means that southbound stock from the depot subsequently automatically appears a bit later heading north, before completing the circuit and heading south again. Judicious provision of additional tracks around these loops would allow the sequence of trains to be varied. The ”external” fiddle yard looks as if it could be a nuisance, especially if the 2 foot space is only used to gain access to it, with a second operator necessary. The Bounds Green depot is fundamentally a real-life fiddle yard, so I would suggest it could be used as such, reducing the need for a hidden one. I would get rid of the Hertford Loop fiddle yard as it is not fit for purpose, and propose another return loop arrangement, so that the non-local trains can be replicated without length restrictions. There is also space on the opposite side for another fiddle-yard/depot – perhaps Hornsey? For some reason the plan of Bounds Green depot itself, as drawn, is actually considerably deeper than it is in real life, which has exacerbated the access problems, so I have prepared a more scaled version using dimensions off NLS and Google maps. If the empty spaces along the station and fiddle yard could be done away with, and the layout taken to the edge of the room, to maximise its size, the mainline tracks running along the edge could be left simple, bereft of pointwork, which would minimise the need to be able to gain easy access, although some arrangement might be necessary at extreme corners of the room. I apologise for another crude plan; I don’t have the relevant software or the skills and time to use it properly, so I offer this rough draft as a seed pearl for the experts, if they think it has merit. The reversing loop shown dotted would be at a lower level than the Hertford Loop, so the only gradients will be between Bowes Park and Wood Green/Alexandra Palace. It might be possible to include an non-scenic link between the two mainline loops across the proposed entrance, with a lifting section for access, to accommodate situations where, in real life, the trains are not turned, such as those which always have a loco at one end and a driving trailer at the other, and the orientation doesn’t change. I apologise for the length of this entry, but I feel that this project has tremendous potential to be an outstanding layout, and opportunities are being overlooked.

I have been following this topic since the beginning, as I was intrigued to see how a scheme for such generous accommodation might develop, which it has, although not always in expected ways. However, even having re-read all the eight pages of posts, there seem to be so many imponderables that haven’t been properly addressed which make it hard to offer any further ideas, as they could impact on how things might be improved. Firstly, it would be a good if the possible stock to be used could be defined. As a Luddite the various Eras that have been bandied around are fairly meaningless to me, and seem to be open to interpretation anyway. A straight-forward date-range could be the answer, with an outline of the stock that will be used – such as whether most main line trains are to be locomotive hauled (diesel or electric, and steam has been mentioned) or EMU’s, and the anticipated length of typical trains, for main-line, local and goods services. I haven’t understood how the layout is to be perceived. There seems, at the moment, to be a large oval of track, albeit four lines, around which long trains will orbit, few, if any, stopping at the station (Wood Green/Alexandra Palace) whilst there is a vast depot, the majority of which is undercover, which will see a train of stock arrive (off the Hertford Loop) heading south, to be, presumably, shunted into one of the sheds, to reappear sometime later, to head southward to Kings Cross, although fundamentally circulating in an anti-clockwise direction until arrangement can be made to reverse it in a fiddle yard. The only breath of fresh air is the use of the Bowes Park reversing siding, but the full impact of the Hertford loop has been lost by turning it into a small branchline, whereas there is potential for using it for freight, specials and diversions off the main ECML, but pointless with nowhere to go but a three coach fiddle yard. It would be useful to know what you feel is the most important aspect of the layout to you – construction, operation, rolling stock, scenery or whatever; at the moment it feels as if you want to create a diorama of the area, with trains just running through it for effect. I also cannot see how the layout is going to be operated to its full potential, unless it is going to be fully automated. There is a vast central operating well, where I would expect it to be run from, but the two fiddle yards are hidden behind backscenes, or only accessible from outside the layout. This does suggest that there will be several operators involved, and I wonder if the two-foot wide access along the main line is meant for rows of spectators, who can sit and watch as a parade of trains go past, as otherwise it is a tragic waste of space. I also wonder how operators are supposed to access the central well. You have already mentioned that you have a disability of some sort, and we are all getting older, and using a duck-under gets less attractive with every day.

Bowes Park station opened in 1880, and the 1914 OS map shows the central reversing siding. Certainly by the time I was commuting through it, the siding could take a substantial set of coaches and a large diesel loco. As far as I am aware, it had to be able to handle a typical ECML train, although there was a second crossover before the platforms which could deal with longer trains, but at the risk of disrupting the suburban traffic on the Hertford Loop.

No. 317 was the fourth B2 to be rebuilt with a C3 boiler and other improvements to become B2X. As the first conversions were not quite as successful as was hoped, various tweaks would have been tried, and this run was probably testing the efficacy of the latest attempt. The loco still has its brass number plate, which helps to fix the date. Ex-Gerald Loder was actually allocated to Brighton shed in 1906, before being rebuilt in 1908, and was at St. Leonard’s in 1922.

I’m not entirely sure, but I think you might have more luck if you search for Wood Green or similar. There is a thread on the LNER forum that may be of interest. https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10153&start=30 Although there seem to have been carriage sidings and a large shed on the site of the old GER goods yard, from around 1929, the current depot facilities only appeared in the seventies to handle the HST’s and I suspect that is when the Bounds Green name first appeared.

I am not a signalling expert, but it is fascinating to see how they managed a fairly complex station layout using, as far as I can see, only one facing point lock - Lever 25 I think. However, this parsimony did reduce the potential flexibility, as the only way a passenger train can leave the Back Platform is on the Down line, for which signal 4 controlled its departure. Although the pointwork at the east end (Lincoln) end does allow trains to depart from the back platform in the Up direction, there are no signals or facing point locks that would allow loaded passenger trains to do so. It is also interesting that all the pointwork in the goods yard was under the control of the signal box, but that may be LD&ECR practice. I assume that the Midland services from Mansfield terminated in the Up platform, and then, once empty, would pull ahead and then reverse over the crossover into the back platform, the loco then running around the train, to be ready to depart on the Down line.

If you want a book that goes into Stroudley's life and achievements in a rather more detailed way, I can recommend this one. Although the writer doesn't claim it is a biography there is an excellent introduction to his life, fascinating details of some of the minutiae of loco fittings, and even a summary of his inventiveness in the maritime sphere.

That may have happened, but as I understand it, the flap, the presence of which severely weakened the structural integrity of the wagon, was an early example of health and safety, and/or labour pressure. As the height of coal wagons increased in the Edwardian era, the workers employed in London to unload the wagons objected to having to lift the coal over the higher sides, and, to appease them, the flap was introduced to reduce the height accordingly to something like that of the five or six plank wagons they were used to. Perhaps labourers north of Watford were made of stronger stuff, or were less organised.

As far as I am aware, the headshunt was never converted into a loop, and the 1920 Wagstaff signalling plan probably shows the station at its maximum extent. I would suspect that the frequency of passenger service was such that any running around of goods trains could be easily undertaken during the interval. As can be seen only two facing points locks were needed, although it looks like there was one on the point at the west end of the up-platform, which would be required if services from Guildford were terminated and reversed from this platform, as someone suggested. The headshunt actually extends up to Cranleigh gasworks. This was quite a rarity on the Brighton system, as only about a dozen, out of the ninety gasworks served by the LBSC had a siding connection - the LBSC obviously didn't receive the Peter Denny memo from Railway Modeller!

I realise that there is something missing from my scheme. At the moment, the movement of stock has empties from Kings Cross travelling north ( clockwise) and then reversing (anti clockwise) into the depot. After their stay in the depot they would then head back south to Kings Cross, to return later, on the prototype, heading back north. (Clockwise) However, on the layout there is no way for the southbound train to reverse its direction, so the trains have to circulate anti-clockwise for ever, although something could be incorporated in @Chimer ‘s fiddle yard, or is there room for a reversing loop using tighter radius curves in a hidden area.

Having commuted for a number of years on the Hertford North line into London, I always thought that the arrangement at Bowes Park would be ideal for an exhibition layout. At least in the 1980's empty stock came off the GNR mainline, on the branchline, crossing the mainline in the process. They then proceeded past Bowes Park station and moved into a central siding between the two local lines. Then, under monitoring, they would reverse back to London, on the south-bound local line to enter into the depot. I would be inclined to make use of this prototypical manoeuvre, perhaps re-locate your mainline station and relocate your depot along the long side of your layout. I have prepared a very crude sketch of what I might do, with the main station possibly located on the shorter side. You will need to consider gradients, which is when the location B of the main station would make things easier. I have suggested a flyover bridge across the mainlines such as occurs at Harringay further south. Apologies for having turned your schematic upside down, started sketching without thinking!

There’s an interesting article in the October 2023 issue of BackTrack magazine, I K Brunel and the Cheltenham and Gloucester Railway, which describes how the great man surveyed the line, to comment on the various current proposals. He seemed to cover a prodigious amount of ground, riding over 30 miles of country every day.

A little bit harsh. I’d started my answer before you posted, but I had to find the link. We were only minutes apart! Perhaps you should patrol the jokes threads.

Not quite as ornate, but probably not likely in 4mm, but Fretcetera do something similar. https://www.scalelinkfretcetera.co.uk/product/slf035/