mightbe

I think in modelling terms there's an implicit consensus that we speak of physics, motion, etc. as "apparent", not absolute (since attempting to scale things goes nowhere).

Just to illustrate how the throats I mentioned worked, I've pared some of them down to the bare bones and reduced complicated/unavailable pointwork to its most basic form: Note that the basic platform layout is identical while the throats suggest dramatically different service patterns and enable different functions. The Southampton throat is designed for an intensive service with parallel moves (I've suggested a crossover in orange to enable another), while the Bournemouth West throat is designed for a more infrequent service. Here we have Bognor before and after electrification, showing that the later version is in fact a minor variation on the same paradigm as Southampton's much older track layout. Note also that the later version allows for the additional parallel move that I suggested in the Southampton diagram above. As for Eastbourne, well, it's impossible even with the flatbottom range of code 75 but it is essentially a more elaborate version of the Southampton-Bognor paradigm with multiple scissors and much redundant trackwork.

Yes, diverging pairs of lines with some sort of diamond is a double junction formation, though two side by side turnouts of the same hand do not necessarily make one. Brighton of course has them as a means of connecting the two legs of the South Coastway line--the functional core of the main line terminus is platforms 1-8, which is where you find the pair of tandems on the tracks leading to platforms 5 and 6. There are even double junction formations within this core tied into other pointwork, making them less obvious and more useful in terms of footprint (your current throats are quite long feature a lot of paired trackwork). , I'm glad you've had a look at Bournemouth West--it's certainly an interesting station. The advice to follow Brighton might've made more sense at the time, before the implications of your vision became more apparent. Zomboid earlier showed how the Bournemouth West arrangement would look next to the Southampton one, which is certainly an idea to pursue further, at least in terms of designing the two throats and then finding a prototypical way of postdating them into the 30s (with one or two direct connections for a handful of services, bearing in mind that transfers were still the primary means of continuing a journey at such locations). Oh, two side notes (because I've admittedly forgotten)1. did I mention about how the LSWR headshunt for the carriage sidings would probably be on the inside to prevent conflicting moves with arrivals? 2. Kitbashing a cantilevered signal box might be your best bet--the cabins were much like one-story versions of their grounded cousins, simply plopped onto some heavy girders. 3. The smaller turntables look great! Much more in-period

Re: throats It's hard to qualify in general terms why neither station throat quite resembles any that I've yet encountered along the South Coast in the early 20th century. (I do see similarities to the 1950s layout at Portsmouth Harbour, but that's too late and in a totally different operational idiom.) What I meant about the double junction motif (it appears three times at the moment) is not so much its presence but its dominance and application; a double junction formation forms the nucleus of both of your throats as well as a standard double junction linking the two like conjoined twins linked at the thorax. The analogy is especially true given that your throats share many characteristics; they mirror one another in a fundamental way. Admittedly this symmetry would hardly be noticeable were the adjacent formations more generic. Because you mention the trackwork being inspired by Brighton, I referred to a 1909 OS map: Now it's a bit of a visual catastrophe (ha) but the waist of the throat is right in the middle, just south (right) of the junction toward London Road. From there it's fairly easy to spot the fast down. Aside from a trailing crossover (from the slow) the first trackwork an arriving train would negotiate is a tandem turnout, one of two adjacent tandems linked by a diamond. These to my mind form the core of the throat; its essential operational hub. The 1932 signal diagram also shows this arrangement but according to the OS had been replaced sometime before 1951. Having inspected a few versions of the Brighton layout I haven't really noticed any of its design motifs, either fundamental or superficial, in your current plans. Maybe they were there at one point but have since been edited out? This isn't necessarily a bad thing of course; your two stations are a lot smaller and neither throat requires anything quite so extravagant, so overt similarities would be few and far between. For something more in the spirit of the era and the two companies (bearing in mind few changes were made between 1913 and the 30s), I would suggest looking at how the LSWR achieved the transition from double track mainline to x terminus platforms at Bournemouth West and Southampton Terminus especially. For the LBSCR side I suggest Eastbourne and Bognor as two reasonably reasonable examples. Hope that clarifies things.

It's looking a lot better! A few minor ideas: 1. The only remaining oddity with the carriage sidings is that they have to be shunted across the arrivals side--were this a real station the headshunt would most likely be placed beneath the main line. 2. There shouldn't be a direct connection between a platform line and the turntable because of the hazard. It's the sort of thing authorities would frown on and ultimately order to be removed. 3. The individual throats don't particularly remind me of any station from this era. It's primarily that they're based around double junction formations, which is a more modern way of designing a throat (80s-present). A similar number of parallel moves can be achieved while still being more true to the idiom. 4. Just a thought, but maybe one of the signal boxes (probably No. 1) could be cantilevered over the throat. It's a distinctive but prototypical feature, and would solve the sighting issues.

Just keep churning those clips out, we'll let you know when we're ready for you to stop Out of curiosity, what's the half-lifted bit of track meant to represent? The one visible in the default still from the last clip.

1. Brighton was built by one company as the endpoint for two of its own lines, not two rival companies A great example of inter-company weirdness is London Victoria--it had 0 connections, and continued to not have any well into the 1930s. Perhaps for this fictional town there wasn't room left anywhere else to build a completely separate station--so the LBSCR crammed one in right next to the LSWR one, hoping to capitalize on connecting services and their shorter route to London. 2a. Ah, I misunderstood and thought the No. 1 box controlled both throats. Never mind then. 3. I'd be happy to show you images of steam sheds where even the tops of the rails threatened to disappear. A. There's actually plenty of room to include a direct connection to both platforms. Personally I'd imagined the sort (going right to left here) involving two adjacent RH turnouts, a diamond, and another turnout on the lead. ------------------ On the LSWR carriage sidings, I think having them in front of the station isn't a great solution. Especially since we're saying the LSWR got their first, they'd build their carriage sidings in a sensible/normal location a bit down the line. But--keeping the LBSCR ones poses no issue since they're not really blocking anything. Centrally located carriage sidings at some stations lasted into the 60s-70s. Bath Queen Street and Glasgow Queen Square both had them, as did a few other places (all outside London). I'll try to think of an SR example if I can, bearing in mind that once electrification got going new carriage sheds sprung up. EDIT: Incidentally, I also considered (if this layout is actually set in the Grouping era-30s) that there be a small turntable pit (filled in) located between the ex-LBSCR approaches and the engine shed tracks. That would suggest that the SR came by and enlarged the ex-LSWR turntable (since the Peco 12" is an enormous turntable for any period before then) while getting rid of the redundant and small one (which couldn't be expanded without seriously affecting the rest of the shed). Thus, the two engine sheds had been built entirely separately and were only joined together by the SR to cut costs. (The SR was famously stingy.)

1. I did remove the paired double junctions, it seemed like overkill on what would've been (in reality) two separate stations with two separate structures. Were this a real location there probably wouldn't have been any direct connections in the early days; early relations between the two companies were quite famously poor and required parliamentary intervention. The bitter and petty disputes had waned by the early 20th century, but things were by no means cosy. One direct connection for a handful of passenger services would've sufficed. In such an arrangement goods traffic headed from the LBSCR to this particular LSWR line would have been exchanged at another, more operationally convenient location. On a related note the two adjacent stations would've been equipped with separate signal boxes. (The SR started consolidating and rebuilding signal boxes in the 1930s, some in their famous Art Deco style.) 2. A second direct connection is a pretty simple change, but not something I'd necessarily expect until the Grouping. 3. Even if three-way bullhead points never arrive I have two related pearls of practical wisdom: No. 1, everything but the rail heads of tandem turnout in the LSWR shed would be buried under ash and general 'yuck'. No. 2, the LBSCR tandem is nearly 4 feet from the viewer so disguising the difference is fairly easy. You could always choose to replicate the interesting pre-grouping practice of burying the sleepers under fine ballast in station areas, i.e., where workers would walk most. 4. If you look closely the headshunt meets up with its original alignment. (I left out the main lines beneath since their location is obvious.) However, you could move the turntable and anything affected in the LBSCR shed a few inches 'up' with zero difficulty, restoring the earlier curve. Unnumbered item A: The earlier proposal struck me as very egalitarian and even-handed, as if perhaps the two companies were sharing notes and cooperating. I opted to give the LSWR side clear priority since I (we) imagined them getting there a couple decades earlier. For the same reasons I simplified and tightened up the LBSCR throat a little, to make it work around (not with) the pre-existing LSWR facilities. " " B: I really can't imagine any arrangement requiring a third tunnel. A branch would deviate on the other side at a convenient junction, light engine movements from a nearby goods facility would proceed toward the shed via the main, etc. In practice, railway companies were willing to do very awkward things indeed if it kept them from digging more tunnels than they absolutely had to. Glasgow Queen Street is a great example of this. " " C: It was common to use the main line as a headshunt at a terminus, especially in awkward or cramped locations. Glasgow Queen Street was a much larger station than the proposed LBSCR one. EDIT: here's the link: http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17&lat=55.8634&lon=-4.2508&layers=81&b=1 " " D: Perhaps so; the alternatives are equally realistic. Today it's easy to observe an awkwardly wide platform previously used for loading parcels, newspapers, etc., or as a now-eliminated taxi rank. But then there are also termini that once had carriage sidings between a pair of platform tracks--King's Cross, Euston, Paddington, Brighton, Victoria, Bath Queen Square, etc etc. (No real responses to the rest; the geography seems about right and don't have any helpful info regarding the 'filling of slots')

Here's the original arrangement at Bath Queen Street. It's worth remembering that the Midland got there in 1869 (with a temporary terminus), while the jointly owned (Midland+LSWR) S&D arrived in 1874. The Midland provided motive power and servicing while the LSWR provided stock and infrastructure originally, so in terms of having two sheds... in a way it was laid out to augment what was there, while also providing some independence. (Hence the reason for the shared turntable.) With what you've shown I'm not sure I see hints at chronology. The two throats definitely give the air of operational independence, but the way they're sited in relation to the two sheds makes it look like they were built simultaneously. Have you considered putting the turntable over in this location? I sketched out a few changes to make room for the arrangement. To me this location suggests that the LSWR arrived first and the LBSCR had to 'make do' with a less optimized and more cramped arrangement (and presumably paid to widen an existing platform to make room for their own structure). This would be especially true if the topographically easy route to the town had already been taken by the LSWR--justifying the tunnels on the LBSCR line. (I apologize for not being able to flesh out the shed trackwork in the first image; I'm working around a 50-piece track limit. I also realized I'd need to change the shape of the LSWR shed building in the process, and a couple other slight visual differences) Per your questions: I don't think any railway company has ever built an extra tunnel for a headshunt when the main line can be used, which was fairly common anyway. As for the short platform, it could be either. Personally the idea of there being one wide platform with room for a taxi rank would really complete the station, and the short platform could take a 'slice' out of the far end (for parcels, a nearby branch, etc.)

I don't believe the main line has been realigned just north of the station, at least not significantly. Pictures from all eras seem to show the slight S bend, and it's discernible in old OS maps as well. If you look at a map from above it looks straight, but due to the low angle the curvature becomes more apparent due to foreshortening IIRC. It's one of the reasons why I never look at layout plans from above; I pick up my laptop and look at very low angles, usually along the track. Satan's Goldfish is exactly right--rakes were constantly being taken apart and reassembled with varying numbers of 1st/2nd coaches etc. I think single-ended (buffers to the right) would work well as suggested above--the locomotive would run around the carriages and propel them into the sidings. Such shunting was beyond commonplace, in fact it was the norm outside of locations with dedicated pilots. And since the station/platform arrangement is merely inspired by Oxford, I see no issue taking a few liberties with the carriage sidings too.

2 main reasons: a) carriage sidings are typically much longer than the platforms of the station associated with them, often by a factor of 1.5 or 2 (Counterexample: Dover Priory, but the reasons for that arrangement are pretty obvious) b) since it's a fairly small layout, having two long ladders takes up a lot of would-be storage space in addition to visual space. This is a rare instance of more (i.e. longer) track = less cramped on the whole Loop carriage sidings are atypical in the UK--twice the cost for turnouts (etc) and less of the space taken up is usable for storage (as a proportion). Carriage sidings are rarely more than 3/4 full by design, allowing a degree of operational flexibility without the additional outlay of a second ladder or more land. IMHO it's quite telling that Oxford's carriage sidings (west of the line) are once again single-ended (curiously now facing the opposite direction) EDIT: Here's a pic of the current situation just for reference: And this from the opposite end shows the interesting curve taken by the track north of the station: The situation you're modelling would be this from 1979, correct?

I think for the loop sidings to work you need them to be a bit longer--the carriage sidings at Oxford were/are really quite long. Checking google maps they have recently reverted to regular sidings, with the buffers facing north. Incidentally, the carriage sidings as-built were also single-ended but faced south (visible on OS maps). I wonder how long they were double ended?

There are exceptions--check out the finescale H0 modular layouts in Germany and the Netherlands. The people behind it codified every such pitfall out of existence, and while there are a handful of in-progress boards it's definitely no half-assed setup. Example:

Just to clarify, you're zooming with the on-screen + and - buttons right, not zooming the browser? (circled below) This is the max zoom I get on Chrome, there was no lag from refocusing: *my screen resolution is higher than the jpg resolution, hence the slight bluriness EDIT: In Chrome at least (just discovered this) using the browser zoom is identical to the on-screen controls, possibly because it's not a website but a pdf file.

The SR and its predecessors had relatively few joint operations with lines from 'the North'. The one that really stands out is the Sunny South Express; originally LBSCR/LNWR (and later SR/LMS) it connected Liverpool/Manchester and Brighton via Willesden Junction. It ran from the early 1900s until WWII. EDIT: There was, before WWI at least, a Newcastle to Bournemouth service.

There could be an inlet wrapping to the other side, or alternatively imagine the buffer stops facing south--that really opens the conceptual space for an inlet or protected wharf area.

Do you have any information about how fish were loaded at such locations? I don't see the "north" location of the fish sidings being all that realistic but I admittedly haven't studied the topic. If that could be done "south" of the platforms that might be the better option on both counts. EDIT: I think the throat was better in the first of the two plans, along with the overall orientation of the MPD. However, the turnable should not be linked to the carriage sidings and I'm not sure about the flow. Often the layout was designed such that there was a single sequence that all locos would go through upon entry; usually coal and water were taken care of first, then ashes, then turning before finally going to the shed itself (unless the loco was booked for an immediate return). Turntables were rarely permitted to be an integral part of the sequence; otherwise a failure would stop the entire shed.

http://www.semgonline.com/coach/sets.html The spreadsheet contains a ton of relevant info for all periods.

Compared to before this is looking great and very do-able! Satan's Goldfish has a done a great arrangement for the shed, and I echo the sentiment that the goods area would probably be off scene. (You can always incorporate a parcels platform between the carriage sidings and the platforms). Getting rid of the little goods shed also gives you a few more inches clearance between the reversing curves and the station, which is no bad thing. As for trackwork, I can't recommend Markway (it frankly looks like handbuilt track from 1960s), but I do recommend hayfield who has a thread on his commissioned trackwork projects. Even just copperclad sleepers can looks quite good if the "up top" is done right (as hayfield does). He also works from Templot, which is a good option for complicated early 20th century pointwork. At the moment the station does look a bit 1980s/BR-rationalized due to the non-availability of the complete bullhead range, though this wouldn't be a problem if you used templot. My biggest recommendation is to swap the fiddle yards such that the inner tracks descend and the outer ones stay flat or even ascend slightly, since you don't need their approaches to cross over each other. EDIT: Oh, I forgot to point out a great resource for SR station inspiration: http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=10&lat=51.2004&lon=-0.0697&layers=173&b=1. The National Library of Scotland has some *very* well-drawn OS maps of southern England from the 1940s-1960s. That's a tad later than your era but generally things stayed as they were from the 1930s until the 1970s. (As an aside, corresponding sheets from the 1930s blank out much of railway infrastructure, what with the impending and inevitable war.)

Well, you seem intent on creating a cramped, aggressively unattractive layout. I can't stop you, of course. Just trying to point it out such things in advance; minimizing regret and so on.

Visually the eye stops "caring" at about 9 coaches, especially at low viewing angles. (If you're standing and the layout is at 36", this visual trick doesn't quite work.) The reason for a 10-coach+loco platform is to have some "extra" platform fore and aft of a train, which makes the station look larger than it perhaps is. The reasons for fewer platforms are legion; more space for the platforms themselves, more space for buildings, slightly less pointwork in the throat, easier to "fill" and again, the eye stops caring at a certain point how many platforms there literally are. The completed scene is enough for the eye to go "oh hey, a huge station with lots of platforms". (I chose 9 because it's more than twice the number of approach tracks and looks better than, again, an even number.) Also, forgot to say: somewhat shorter platforms will visually balance the space, the trains, and the trackwork better. With the throat functioning as a scenic space trains won't be seen leaving the layout before the last coaches have even gotten out of the station proper (and the reverse), which is the implication of the current proportions. The idea is to make the layout and its operations visually passible while accepting a modicum of spatial compromise--this is one of the intangible things that makes layout design an art, and what can save your layout from the small dimensions of the shed. We don't really notice slightly shorter trains arriving in slightly shorter platforms since everything has been reduced by a similar degree. Make no mistake, a 9-coach train is quite a grand thing indeed and the eye will simply accept it as a realistically-long mainline express. Speaking as a P4 dabbler, eyes are quite foolable things.

I think the hole in the shed is an unattractive solution on a couple levels. I think a better move would be to scale the station back to no more than 9 platforms, with the longest platforms being scaled back to 10-coach length+loco (and the rest of the platforms being 7-8, with maybe one short platform only able to hold 6+loco). This will simplify the throat without it looking even remotely simple. Quentin

I think the platforms may be wider than that photo suggests: http://maps.nls.uk/view/101201286 (1895) (most-detailed) http://maps.nls.uk/view/103313279# (1914, p. 1932) (most time-correct) http://maps.nls.uk/view/102900955 (1953) (most similar to the above photo) EDIT: I'm not very good at scaling from these; someone else may be. I'm just going by eye. I also note that Paddington only had 9 platforms in the 1914 version, which tells me you could scale back your current station without any real loss; leaving room for something other than just track. EDIT 2: FWIW, I think 96mm wide platforms would look quite good. 24'.

They were basically; the triplexes were massive failures. Three sets of paired cylinders consume all the oomph in no time at all and the/coal water consumption was unsustainable. Top speeds were necessarily low by any standard.

It looks like a slight mistake was made on the left hand side--the / track should connect to the end of the light green yard, not the outer loop. Other than what's mentioned above the FY looks really quite good.