dseagull

Yep, that's the plan! 1931, apparently. Another anomaly I'll have to live with! Yes, fair point.... Yes, this would make more sense. Back to the drawing board. Again, a fair point. It's all a little bit 'planned to fit' at the moment rather than looking natural. I don't think I will need to be able to remove it, at least not at short notice. I wanted a cameo-style box, because that is fairly straightforward to build and apart from the fiddle yard(s?), would be pretty self contained - I am conscious that other things (the mower, paint, gardening tools etc) currently cluttering the utility room will need to be found a space in there too! There won't be space in the house until at least two of the kids have moved out (at least another 8-10 years!), so it's a case of, as is so often the way, compromise or nothing.

There is, of course, another solution... That's Peco 009 track with a 'mainline' point (couldn't get the curve to work neatly with the small radius ones). Very simple, running onto a raised strip/bank (I think the standard gauge siding will need to be lowered due to the position of the river. I've not really got any knowledge of narrow gauge operations, so it is possibly just as unrealistic as the rest of the scheme, but it does add another dimension to it perhaps? The Water Tower shown is dimensioned for the rather attractive new Scalescenes kit. The only other change, apart from a readjustment of the road and river, is that the factory has gone*. I'm sure this will cause great distress to many 😜 Two versions, both use an asymmetric 3-way (because I can't see how else to do it), one at the start of the loop as you enter the station, the other accessed from the platform road. *I'll just have to call the shop 'Kane and Son' instead!

Scenic length is exactly the same as before?

I think mostly is probably fair, but not exclusively! This is a bit of the front and side of a cottage we used to live in. Side wall was very much the 'pebbles in mortar' style, and whilst I can't find any pictures right now, I think at least part of the back was too. Edit; The adjoining cottage (well, it was the landlady's!) goes one better in the 'how many Sussex building cliches' race by also including hanging tiles

Ah, Leintwardine... The amount of times I've tried to draw that with non handbuilt track! It's a lovely plan and one of my main inspirations for the 'loop in the yard'.

I think that's the only thing we've not got so far! Until now... Left it on 'play' mode to show that loco + 5 fits. Much as before, though I think the asymmetric 3-way makes it flow a little better than with another point in the loop. The main siding continues over the lane, protected by a gate perhaps, off to the right, representing the shingle loading. I've compressed about 2 miles into 2 foot admittedly (so no, the rest of it can't be scenic!), but, without a total rethink, it's the only way I can think of to represent what, as Phil rightly says, would be the main traffic for any such line. A 5 wagon train would be short, but not unrealistic given the gradients involved - I believe trains on the Cuckoo Line were limited even into the 60's for the same reason.

Many thanks @Schooner , more food for thought there. Shed is 12' x 8' and despite checking the website, I can't find the internal dimensions. I suppose I could change things around and have a U shape, with the scenic section on the end wall. Another rabbit hole to explore! I do fear we are getting away from my original 'spec' - something small, with a small amount of detailed stock. I can see the benefits of adding more scenic area - I just don't really want to...

It is certainly the best of the plastic options, yes. I've used it before for one of the versions that didn't get very far!

Thanks Phil; Some really nice examples there of the sort of buildings I want. Now to work out how to best represent flint... - there are commercial offerings for the knapped kind, but less so for the whole stone kind, e.g.

Yes, it is a balancing act; the extra foot would be useful, but I'd set myself a limit of 8' in length for space reasons, and whilst I can see there would be benefits, I think I'm happy with the dimensions given. I did have a go at moving the cattle pens, as below;

Thanks Dave. Do quite like that, and I can certainly see the appeal of going for more of an L shape, however I wanted to keep the bulk of the layout on one side of the shed really. Highworth is certainly an attractive inspiration though, a bit of reading there I feel! The industrial building being an old converted/extended mill is very appealing. The flour mill at Horsebridge mentioned earlier was a water mill. Could always move the station building along slightly (the is a visual gap between the cottages and school) and put the cattle dock between the platform road and the goods siding. Will have another virtual doodle. I am yet to sample the delights of cake in Litlington. Now that the football season is over (don't ask.... 😢 ), a summer visit may be in order.

Yep, and it looks better; I do like @Nearholmer's plan, however with regard to making the curved area part of the visible layout, I was planning to build the layout in a cameo style, with the curve to the fiddle yard (likely just a single line with cassettes) offstage as then should the layout need moving in the future, that is the only bit that would have to be sacrificed. Talk of dead space though got me thinking. There is a huge area of grassland at the front which, although one of my wants was 'trains in the landscape' (as much as you can do that with an 8' x 2'2" layout anyway!, does seem a little excessive. Angling the layout does reduce this considerably, and also frees up a nice bit of space behind the road. Perhaps for the rather attractive church?.... Photo Julian Guffogg via geograph.co.uk You will have to excuse the lack of neatness, it needs work to smarten up, but just as a proof of concept.... interesting. Edit; Now tidied up. Very encouraging!

Thanks everyone for the continued feedback and assistance - very much appreciated. Indeed. I looked again at what I wanted, and I agree with recent comments - the additional sidings detracted from, rather than added to, that. We now have a very simple single siding for coal and general goods for the village, with the livestock pens on the same siding. The bay has gone to simplify arrangements, but I've kept the loop beyond the platform, the curve to the platform, change in direction of the river and the hotel from previous versions. An alternative version of the above also exists; Three way point at the end of the platform serving the loop and the private siding. I've not shown it as I think it is again drifting a little from the original idea.

And just for good measure, V8 Amended position of siding. Can't decide if it works better or not. Loops now take 6 x 6 Wheelers, 10 wagons. I've also slightly adjusted the road to take into account some new information; I believe this is now Litlington House (formerly Hotel) - Google Streetview Link Obviously on the plan the station is opposite the hotel - the Pleasure Gardens entrance would be moved slightly to the lane leading to the goods yard (still opposite the hotel - just diagonally!)

I think we are now on V7... A bit different from previous versions, in that the loop is now more (although not quite, I am struggling to get it exact!) parallel. End loading, private siding and cattle pens are all still there. Goods shed still there, though it won't be the Metcalfe one that I have added in any case, that is just a convenient placeholder! Coal dealt with on the middle siding. The run into the station is considerably longer than it was previously, and I've brought the river more into focus as a result. I did toy with losing the kickback (and the bay for that matter), but I think something is needed at the right hand end to bring visual balance. The 'on end' cottage is also inspired by the prototype inspiration at Ripe (Google Streetview link).

Thanks Phil, appreciated. In turn; I had considered a P class, but would need to shift forward 10 years really (Pushing my luck as it is, without adding a second company into the mix!) I was thinking passenger trains would take the route through the bottom of the loop as @Nearholmer suggested I was quite keen on a loop not parallel to the platform, but can revisit. Not really played around with that so worth a look. The bay would be for end loading, yes. Fair point. I should take the goods shed off the plan, as I don't really want one! - the original idea was bay for livestock/end loading, long siding for coal, shorter siding for general goods. Now the cattle pens have moved, it would be livestock in the shorter siding and general goods/coal in the longer siding, with the bay for end loading. The splay was just to avoid it looking too linear Yes, fair point and ideally I would have more of a run, however it is a compromise that I'm hoping can be hidden with some trees overhanging the river Thanks - It doesn't have to, just thought it would be easier! Not desperate for one, was just trying to find an efficient way of doing things. May look better with the kickback siding off the bay. Will revisit the non-slip version.

Yes, I think I prefer the version with the slip really. Not far off where I want to be now.

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)

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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

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.