Lacathedrale

Even on a crossover? Guess where I found some of the psuedo blue-nosed, 19th Century LBSCR platform edging with a straight, non-corbelled platform face? Clapham Junction! It may well really be bricks (given the red corners) but it's good enough for me. I'm a little unsure about what to do with the track across the board joints - I've used brass screws to both secure the rail ends and also mount droppers, and cut away fairly significant portions of the foam roadbed underneath too, so it's not so easy to just slide sleepers underneath. My gut feeling is to 'make good' and then cover it with a magnetised, planked barrow crossing - but that may adjust how the platform ends look...

Engagement is very low indeed normally, between 2-5% feedback should be expected - and I think you are well above that in likes and comments in proportion to reads and views. I vehemently disagree with the idea that you are diverging too far from railway modelling. If I have to suffer through another 'how to weather a BR Black locomotive' article/blog/forum post I think I'll go mad - whereas literally every blog entry you have created is interesting, enjoyable, readable to the highest degree, etc. - please don't stop. I'm very much interested in early railways and I would also be interested in the crossover period from broad to narrow gauge too - and not just locomotives: signals, permanent way, wagons, etc. are all fascinating and given your treatment of the subject so far I have no doubts you have many more rich furrows to plough.

As my Minories++ lumbers slowly onwards I took a picture of the throat to illustrate the timbering I've added back in and thought it would be prudent to share in this thread too: I've always thought that the throat could be compacted down with the use of a single slip instead of two turnouts back-to-back (in the top-right of the picture) so that's what I did - but the bones of Cyril's plan are very much in evidence! Time will tell how interesting the layout is to operate. Layout build link is in my signature.

@Caley Jim @simon b the height of that platform is pretty much the correct height for a side loading dock (i.e. level with the top of the solebars) as far as I understand, and end loading dock is slightly higher again to account for an end-door to clear buffers/etc. ? The plan was always to ramp up at the end. Luckily nothing is glued into place yet, so there's lots of moving around that can be done. I'm fairly happy with how the panorama is looking: I've also started to add back in the missing turnout timbers. The equalised timbering of the peco turnouts is a bit rubbish - but I think that's just the track nerd in me and I reckon overall it'll have a nice effect:

Just trying out something - thoughts?

A few more platform carcasses have gone down, and now I'm thinking about the headshunt for the loop. I had originally thought it might be a nice loading dock for vans/etc. - but strictly speaking the level should be at solebar height, and when I do so it really does seem to dominate the front of the scene and blocks quite a bit of the trackwork from a normal viewing height: By comparison, with it 5mm lower I think it looks a bit more natural, even if it's not 'proper': I think as a compromise I may run the carriage siding (which you can see in the foreground) longer and terminate it into an end-loading dock, with a short ramp on the tip of the platform? That should give some height variation and purpose without obscuring the 'fun bit' ?

@Nick Holliday that sounds interesting! 6mm strips across the top edge of the platform and 2mm strips on the front seems to make a good deal of sense. Given they are flush with the vertical face of the platform sides, I think I will need to get that installed so I can butt up the brick cladding to it! Not much has occurred over summer and hopefully you can all forgive me - I have lots of little jobs outstanding, not least finishing those carriages off and deciding on a coupling mechanism to use going forward. I had thought about 3-links but I'm not sure my arm can easily reach over to the rear platform to uncouple - particularly if there's another train in the middle platform - so I may need to revert to another solution :(

This was 1864-69? Or something along those lines - VERY short lived and quickly diverted elsewhere. When I get home I'll try to scan the relevant paragraph.

The latest issue of Invicta (101) details an interesting tidbit about the connecting spur between the SER at 'New Waterloo' (i.e. Waterloo East) and LSWR 'Waterloo': apparently one of the uses of that route was a short lived joint LSWR/LNWR service from Euston to London Bridge via Kensington and Waterloo!

Fantastic and fascinating as always

It shouldn't be forgotten that pre-grouping companies despite being rather parsiminmous in the most traditional free capitalist style did often provision trackwork to permit parallel moves even if they were infrequent. For example, a suggestion in my track planning thread on this Minories variation suggested the connection in light blue, to release P2 from the tyranny of the occupancy/usage of P3. I have highlighted in pink my additions to this plan, I felt like a place to marshal carriages on a passenger-oriented plan would give reason for a pilot loco and some shunting on-layout rather than an in-out shuttle service, and the addition of a short runaround for van/parcel/newspaper traffic would be handy. The 'old turntable road' is in my imagining the location of a one time mid 1800's loco turntable, or a series of those wagon turntables adjacent a warehouse - used now only as a catch-point for the runaround/carriage sidings. In a future L-shaped expansion it may well be reinstated as a proper turntable.

Most people have seen the shots of Moorgate with the Type 2 locos, but here's a shot I found in Backtrack recently which shows an N2 and some suburbans, and the cute little loco headshunt: Relevance to the thread? Moorgate is a continued inspiration on Minories layout scenics. I think the N2 is pulling out of the old SECR platforms?

Ok, 18mm settled upon - I've ordered some 8mm foamcore (rather than sheets of card/flexitrack in the mockup). I feel like it makes sense to have the 'complete' platform carcasses all together (i.e. end-to-end and layer-to-layer glued) and then faced with styrene and then finally placed in situ for the final top layer? I figure that a 2mm L-section glued onto the corner of the platform face/top should do the business for the stones!

Well it's clearly not 20mm from the rail top as that would put it halfway up the carriage sides - is the overall height from baseboard. The underlay and track are about 8mm - so in this case it's wither 12mm above the railhead, or 10mm.

Not much time on the railway recently, but here's an example of the platform heights in larger context, which do you prefer? 18mm 20mm And close up: 18mm: 20mm:

Is your layout even a real Minories if it doesn't have cable haulage?

One idea I must give credit to @MrSimon for, was to raise up the loading dock, so it's the level of van doors/etc. - that's about 3'6" above rail level. It's not a perfect height, and the foreground would be a good deal lower (cab stand) but this is how it might look: For most platform height variety, the foreground dock is high (and will get higher again on the end loading section ramp), the middle platform could be at the original 2'6" level, and the rear platform at 3' with steps down into the buildings there. Though I've cut a good number of strips of foamcore I've not yet had time to re-lay the concourse and platform to the lower height yet. I did realise that I could use 2mm square styrene for the blue brick edging and backfill with filler to bring it up to 2'6" too, but haven't yet tried that (that's next, I think!) Also, while I don't have a TV and have no intention (yet) of getting one, three days of Dorothea being up at 5am has meant these desperate times are calling for desperate measures:

One of the trains i want to run is the Motor Rail service out of the station to a local branch line like Devil's Dyke, Kemp Town, or a more fantastical twig. Though the former was managed totally by a balloon driving trailer and a Terrier, other services such as one to Haywards Heath or in the outer suburban Balham increased capacity with a Brake Third. I grabbed a Hornby 6w Brake Third - the most dominant features being the Stroudley-style brake end windows - and this afternoon set about giving it a quick repaint to my Umber and White livery. I think it suits just fine: What a pleasant change to have the entire thing delivered, disassembled, painted, reassembled and essentially done in a single evening - rather than the ongoing saga of the Tri-ang conversions.

Thank you Tony - your absence in this thread was noted :) Interestingly, the use of large square blocks instead of pavers for the edge of the platform with a flush wall is corroborated in the drawings you have linked. They're going to be very handy, thank you! So I guess the only point of discussion is whether my station was rebuilt post-1880 along with the main Brighton station, or left in its original condition. On one hand the bullnose paving and lower platforms are distinctive and it would differentiate the station model from others - but on the other hand I think as a large town terminus it would be justified to have raised the platforms to 3' by the 1910's though - it's not a way station on a distant branch line after all.

@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:

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.

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?

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

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...

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 It seems that a 54' Driving Trailer would make sense as first priority, since the one vehicle will permit a whole train by itself. 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. 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.