Brighton Trafalgar - An Edwardian LB&SCR Terminus

[Lacathedrale]

Background

This isn't my first rodeo, so for context I hope to introduce myself and what I've been up to with model railways since I got into the hobby as an adult!

 

My name is William and I'm in my (now late) 30's living alongside the Brighton Mainline in Mid Sussex. I grew up in the maze of  SER, LCDR and LBSCR lines in south-east London and though I've obviously no memory of loco hauled services, let alone steam - but the history of the lines that ran through the warren of cuttings and embankments always fascinated me; as a result I've never really wanted to model anything else -but I've never got far enough to say I'd actually modelled it.

 

I undertook a number of layouts, learning lessons from each on the way, so far I've come to realise that:

• The prototype must be relevant and sustain interest over a period - I live adjacent the BML and various LB&SCR routes
• There cannot be too much upfront work before a layout is usable - I'm going with RTR Pre-Group and RTP track
• The layout must be 'more' than a simple inglenook, but must not sprawl to be unmanageable in scope or size - Limited initially to just a station platform/throat and fiddle yard.

 

This layout is a compromise in more ways than one, but I'm hoping that it will allow me to have a layout which has a chance of being finished, exhibited, and enjoyed - rather than a perfect layout that never makes it past the planning phase. It's been very tough for me to come to terms with this, as I find it very easy to lose myself in research instead of getting things done (and risk getting them wrong) and so it's something I'm trying to focus on.

 

Era

My goal is to depict the halycon days of the LB&SCR in the Edwardian era. A 1903-1912 timeframe allows a very wide range of LBSCR stock: from Stroudley Terriers in Improved Engine Green  to Marsh H2's, and from mahogany carriages from the 1870's (there was still a 4w third of 1860 on the books until 1908!)  to full umber 54' bogie coaches.

 

Theme

My layout plan is to depict a secondary passenger terminus with goods facilities up the line where I can operate an intensive schedule: Market day? Diverted Boat train? Race day at the local course? A big part of what I'm trying to achieve is authentic operation - working signals, interlocking, bell codes, etc. are all something I'd like to include at a later date.

 

The only thing I'm not sure about - is where to site this fictional station!? Any suggestions gladly taken for plausible locations!  

 

Track Plan

 

The plan above depicts an urban terminus layout in 13'6" x 18" in linear form. It features a double-track approach into three platforms, with a runaround and a pilot loco pocket over two baseboards depicting a 9' scenic area. The fiddle yard will be a 4'6" x 12" traverser.

 

It is my intent to model this to completion and exhibit the layout in this linear form, but there is a deliberate provision for the insertion of a 90 degree corner piece which will increase the visible running distance into the station and both a headshunt and a carriage siding - shown above with dashed lines - for an overall footprint of 13'6 x 8'6" in an L-shape. I'm not sure whether or not to include the headshunt at the front-right of the layout, any ideas?

 

Location

The location for the layout is currently set up to be the garage - it's a little inhospitable at the moment and plans are afoot for lighting, painting and some rubber flooring:

 

Note, the board currently in place is/was designed for an N-gauge project which never really took off so may well end up at the tip, but is roughly at the correct height and orientation for the station.

 

Baseboard Design

My plan is to build the baseboards from 6mm ply both for the surface and backscene and ripped into strips as the sides, crossmembers and ends, and with a skin of 4mm ply to the underside of the boards as a stiffener. My plan is to use dowels for alignment and bolts with wingnuts for fixing. The idea is that both scenic boards can clamshell together and be bolted, so the layout can be transported. I've no practical experience of this, but I figure it can't be too hard! Any advice on this also appreciated!

 

So far?

Well, it may be a bit premature - so far the layout consists of some rolling stock and track components! However, I'm clarifying some final bits and pieces, and so I reckon that a thread may well be the best way to figure it all out! Questions in umber!

Edited February 10 by Lacathedrale

[phil_sutters]

There aren't that many towns along the Sussex coast that don't have a station and there are several small termini like Seaford, Littlehampton and Bognor. You may have to invent a new town, developed from a small community, expanded by the arrival of the railway into a larger resort - Pevensey Bay, Birling Gap or Dungeness perhaps. You could take over a light railway like Selsey or Camber Sands.

[Regularity]

Seahampton?

 

The obvious thought is LE Carroll’s layout based on the LBSC line from Victoria via Clapham and East Croydon, with a branch to Reigate. MRC Annual, 1979, if you want a good overview. This may be more than you want, initially, but it started with a 3-platform terminus and was later expanded. Personally, I felt it was rather short on goods services and it’s a shame he used linked section control (pulling off the stop signal connects the controller to the next section), rather than reversed link section control (same connection, put power comes from the destination section, and signals can be returned after the train has passed) but it is a good scheme overall, and careful design could allow for hidden loops underneath the terminus later on. You would probably need more length, though: it really needs twice the width for its length, but sections can be fold down.

 

There have been references to it often on RMWeb, although the associated uploads may have disappeared.

[Nick Holliday]

7 hours ago, phil_sutters said:

There aren't that many towns along the Sussex coast that don't have a station and there are several small termini like Seaford, Littlehampton and Bognor. You may have to invent a new town, developed from a small community, expanded by the arrival of the railway into a larger resort - Pevensey Bay, Birling Gap or Dungeness perhaps. You could take over a light railway like Selsey or Camber Sands.

Jane Austen has done all the hard work in creating a back story already! Surely it has to be Sanditon. Apparently based on Worthing in its first developmental period.

[burgundy]

The Brighton side of Hastings station? Or the original Seaford which featured a turntable at the end of the platform - also linked to two loops?

Best wishes 

Eric

[Nearholmer]

Have you seen Edwardian’s thread ‘Umber is the new black’? It explored some similar thoughts before getting (a tiny bit) focused on the section where the quarry line and old SER main line run in parallel.

 

Cuckmere Haven is, IMO, a good bet. There was a plan for a LR down the Cuckmere Valley and, via a tunnel under East Dean, to a new town that never happened at Birling Gap, but moving that sort of idea back in time from c1900 to c1860 and putting the terminus somewhere just below Exceat Bridge, withloads of villas on the lower slopes of the downs on the east side of the valley might work as a piece of imaginary despoilation of the countryside.

 

Or, just build a model of Seaford station in earlier days.

 

But, IMO, three platforms as Minories looks wrong somehow, one too many for the likely pace of life I think, and it would be nice to include the inevitable turntable.

 

Has Central Croydon passed away?

[Edwardian]

Kemp Town is worth a look. Without all the sprawling goods sidings it's a fairly compact small urban passenger terminal. 

 

How about Ventnor on the Isle of Wight Railway? Nice fan table closing the loops, for which you could substitute a TT.

[Tom Burnham]

I think dead-end branch termini were very much the exception in rural East Sussex away from the London suburbs and the coastal belt.  Possibly because most secondary lines in that area were aimed at protecting "territory" rather than just serving a town bypassed by the main line. Brighton Kemp Town might give inspiration, with the line disappearing into a tunnel in the cliffs.

[phil_sutters]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

Kemp Town is worth a look. Without all the sprawling goods sidings it's a fairly compact small urban passenger terminal. 

 

How about Ventnor on the Isle of Wight Railway? Nice fan table closing the loops, for which you could substitute a TT.

 

[phil_sutters]

3 hours ago, burgundy said:

The Brighton side of Hastings station? Or the original Seaford which featured a turntable at the end of the platform - also linked to two loops?

Best wishes 

Eric

 

Edited June 27, 2022 by phil_sutters

[ChrisN]

My layout boards are 6mm ply, with 6mm ply in 6 inch strips down all four sides of one board.  It has four boards all 4ft 6" by 2ft.  They are supported by 4 x 2" legs with an adjustable foot at the bottom, and they are boted into the side panels and the top rests on them.  They are bolted together but they also have metal dowels as positioners to ensure that they fit together properly again if they are taken down, which they have been, and they do.

 

It is all on my thread but unfortunately it is spread over two years and the photos are now missing.  If you would like me to post some here please say.

[Regularity]

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

How about Ventnor on the Isle of Wight Railway? Nice fan table closing the loops, for which you could substitute a TT.

It originally had a short turntable there, but like the one at Bembridge, it was essentially a centre-pivoted sector plate in use. (No point using it as a turntable, as there wasn’t one at the other end.)

Which isn’t to say that you couldn’t have a turntable on your layout set somewhere else, of course.

 

Seaham, as originally built, isn’t bad, but for one from a neighbouring company, what about the SER station at Bromley, used by Geoff Stenner for his sublime S7 layout, “Oakhurst” (http://www.uckfieldmrc.co.uk/exhib06/oakhurst.html)? It didn’t have a loco shed, but there was a road off the table for storing a loco between turns.

At such a station, it is important to have the main station building on the up (departure) platform, otherwise most trains can/will arrive and depart from the same platform, as per many of the LYR terminals such as Holmfirth and Rishton. If you took Holmfirth as a starting point, and changed the piece she’d siding into a bay platform signalled for departures only, retaining the single slip so cut down on facing points, you would have an interesting “extra” in the operating pattern.

 

 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Regularity
Can’t embed link as it is not https

[t-b-g]

It sounds as if you are finally narrowing things down!

 

I think it is a decent plan and idea but I would not have the headshunt. The main purpose of a headshunt is to allow shunting without blocking the running line but as you have to go onto the running line to access the headshunt, it doesn't serve any useful prototypical purpose.

 

If you were to make that into two carriage sidings instead, that would be far more practical and useful. Even if you can't fit a full length train in one of them, it would be a good place to store horse boxes, carriage trucks etc. for attaching to passenger trains. You could have the pilot collect a horse box, run round and shunt it to the loading dock. It pauses there for loading while another train arrives or leaves then it is attached to the front of a passenger train. That is very much a "Buckingham" sort of move and adds much interest to the operation.

[Edwardian]

2 hours ago, Regularity said:

It originally had a short turntable there, but like the one at Bembridge, it was essentially a centre-pivoted sector plate in use. (No point using it as a turntable, as there wasn’t one at the other end.)

Which isn’t to say that you couldn’t have a turntable on your layout set somewhere else, of course.

 

Seaham, as originally built, isn’t bad, but for one from a neighbouring company, what about the SER station at Bromley, used by Geoff Stenner for his sublime S7 layout, “Oakhurst” (http://www.uckfieldmrc.co.uk/exhib06/oakhurst.html)? It didn’t have a loco shed, but there was a road off the table for storing a loco between turns.

At such a station, it is important to have the main station building on the up (departure) platform, otherwise most trains can/will arrive and depart from the same platform, as per many of the LYR terminals such as Holmfirth and Rishton. If you took Holmfirth as a starting point, and changed the piece she’d siding into a bay platform signalled for departures only, retaining the single slip so cut down on facing points, you would have an interesting “extra” in the operating pattern.

 

 

 

Indeed, that is what I meant by fan table. perhaps the wrong word, but, as you say, it wasn't a TT (a TT goes all the way round) but a traverser that looked liked a TT. Aside from anything else, the IWR was a tank engine line and had no need to turn locos. The point is that in a fictitious version one could substitute a TT. 

[Nearholmer]

Thinking about it, you could back-date the setting that Geep7 used for his layout West Sands, which had a similar brief, but 1970s, a bought-out and upgraded HoM&ST. At your date I imagine everything would be brand spanking new, the scheme having been adopted at the drawing board stage, which saves effort on weathering!

 

Pity all the photos have disappeared, because it is a very good two-platform terminus.

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Lacathedrale]

Re: setting - it's kind of the crux: I am not really interested in a sleepy terminus served only by the occasional tank engine (which most of these sleepy seaside towns (and Central Croydon) would fit into) - the raison d'être of this layout is so I can operate an intensive mainline passenger service. I think with that in reality the only option is an urbanised setting at either end of the BML. I had considered siting the layout as the old L&CR platforms between the LBSCR and SER platforms at London Bridge, with the SER high-level through-line retaining wall as a backscene, but I must admit I like the idea of the layout being self contained rather than 'bitsa'. With that in mind...

 

"Brighton Victoria"

We hypothesise in the 1840's a standalone station was built for the Brighton, Lewes and Hastings Railway (i.e. what became the East Coastway Line) on the site of the Central Station's goods yard. Maybe in this alternate universe it was more cost effective to bulldoze more of the slum areas of the North Laine to re-site the goods yard, than to embark on the extensive earthworks required for the extending L&B station above? Think: Reading SR and GWR stations.

 

The station's initial focus of providing extra platforms for the coastal services to Eastbourne and Hastings broadened over time into a more general use of the station with direct connection to the BML. It's seen as more convenient for travellers and excursionists visiting the newly opened pier and the racecourse, and for the railway company to segegate a portion of the coastway traffic away from the already busy Central Station.

 

In addition to a mixture of semi-fast and stopping services fro the Capital, and a share of the coastway traffic, the London-Brighton "Castle Limited" runs via Lewes to BV  (Not QUITE as fast as the Brighton Limited, which runs direct) so its patrons have time to enjoy a digestif before disembarking, and the morning Brighton Victoria-London "Director's Special" (Not QUITE as luxurious as the direct City Limited/"Stock Broker Special") runs a little bit earlier in the day for those tycoons who can't quite yet get away with a 11am start.

 

 

This might be a bit implausible, but I've definitely come across layouts with more ludicrous justifications that worked out just fine in the end, so unless there's something so horrendously egregious about these presumptions, I'm going to crack on.

 

Impact on Layout / Baseboard Design

The main take-away is really that the baseboards can be relatively flat and do not particularly require open frame construction/etc. as the bridges, retaining walls, station buildings, etc. are all above the base of track level. Track will? be mounted on 10mm cork to provide for ditches and undulations in the foreground below sleeper level. On that note, the baseboards should fix together via bolts through the end boards, and the scenery organised so it does not clash - this should be fairly straight forward, with a total of 250mm clearance between baseboard surfaces when bolted together. I'm not sure whether to go for a hinged overall roof or individual canopies, I think I'm going to have to see how the rest of construction goes.

 

@ChrisN if you can post a picture of underneath I would be most obliged!

 

Expansion

@Regularity that same plan was implemented in a form by @Dr Gerbil-Fritters in his shed - which is a tad larger than mine - and found to be wanting - but in principle I like the idea and so thank you for the email. I really must ensure my goal is focused on these three boards first. I can't really squeeze the throat of the layout any smaller, track is already on the way, etc. - but I feel like I have made as much provision as I can so that the layout can expand at a later date. Once I've got it running well, then I will consider my options.

 

@t-b-g thank you for your advice - my specific bolded question was around the little headshunt on the runaround, rather than those on the corner piece - but with reference to those you make a fair point. What do you think of the little one below the main throat noted 'cobbled area' below? I wonder if it might form a useful layover siding while the layout is in linear mode?

 

Sanity checking the Traverser & Train Lengths:

One limitation I have that I'm not really going to be able to get around is the maximum traverser length of 4'6", so I spent the morning with LBSCR Carriages Volumes 3 and 4.  I have found what I think will probably be the longest train on the layout, the London Bridge portion of the Brighton Limited. It consists of a 54' Brake Second + 48' Lav First + 63' Pullman First Kitchen + 48' Brake Lav Composite, pulled by one of the Marsh Atlantics. Happily, it fits in both my traverser and platforms (shown above as the multicoloured train about to enter on the down line in the diagram above).

 

While I was doing this, I also noted that in 1909 there was a through service of SECR coaches from Margate down the coast through Hastings and into Brighton and back again - so maybe we'll see a couple of purple lake coaches after all...

 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[Geep7]

20 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Thinking about it, you could back-date the setting that Geep7 used for his layout West Sands, which had a similar brief, but 1970s, a bought-out and upgraded S&HoMT. At your date I imagine everything would be brand spanking new, which saves effort on weathering!

 

 

 

Thanks for suggesting my thread @Nearholmer. Unfortunately, the site crash and restore has wiped out most of the images on the thread, and they don't seem to be anywhere near being restored. I do intend to go through and re-upload the images, but as you can imagine with a 6-7 year old thread, there is a lot to upload.

However, if there is anything specific you'd like to see, just let me know, and I can either post them here, or prioritise uploading them back into the thread.

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

Aside from anything else, the IWR was a tank engine line and had no need to turn locos.

Many railways turned tank engines, particularly in Victorian days, as it was more comfortable for the driver and aided his visibility - and he quite possibly got the fireman to push the turntable, too! (Think of the small 6-wheeled tank loco turntables at places like Ashburton (later replaced) and Cardigan (at 23’6”, too small for prairies). 
In the case of the IWR, the best reason for having the locos facing south was the climb up to Ventnor, and the need to keep the firebox crown covered with water. Probably not such an issue going downhill, but bunker-first running probably was safer.

 

On the EWJR, they always ran the 2-4-0Ts forwards when in use on trains, as they had a habit of coming off the rails if going in reverse at much above walking pace….

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Lacathedrale said:

Maybe in this alternate universe

Just to be picky (who? Me?), but we are on the east side of the Atlantic Ocean, and that should be alternative. Alternate means switching between, as in alternating current. And it’s alternate, not alternat, as they say it… ;)

[Regularity]

William,

 

Dr. Gerbil Fritters frequently changes his mind about what he wants, but yes, I think the overall scheme is good (and I can thoroughly recommend return loops as a way of getting trains back, especially for the solo operator) but it falls down on the details: not much in the way of goods traffic, and other than a fast train overtaking a train stopped at East Croydon, it is mostly a long run with not much else to do.

 

Anyway, I don’t know if it would fit - probably not, although a small plug-in section might work - but you could put a turntable where you have marked the cobbled area, and have a carriage siding below the runaround loop:

[Edwardian]

23 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Many railways turned tank engines, particularly in Victorian days, as it was more comfortable for the driver and aided his visibility - and he quite possibly got the fireman to push the turntable, too! (Think of the small 6-wheeled tank loco turntables at places like Ashburton (later replaced) and Cardigan (at 23’6”, too small for prairies). 
In the case of the IWR, the best reason for having the locos facing south was the climb up to Ventnor, and the need to keep the firebox crown covered with water. Probably not such an issue going downhill, but bunker-first running probably was safer.

 

On the EWJR, they always ran the 2-4-0Ts forwards when in use on trains, as they had a habit of coming off the rails if going in reverse at much above walking pace….

 

And the WNR!

[Lacathedrale]

Speaking of 2-4-0T's, seems that Boxhill was thusly converted in 1905 and remained that way until 1913, so my shortly-to-be-arriving A1 "Boxhill" is going to need to be shorn a coupling rod or repainted into Umber...

 

 

Turntable

Re: turntable - it really will be too tight on the main board unless i commit to making the layout home-only and add a large bolt on section. It would fit on the inside of the Carriage sidings on the curved board - so either way a consideration after phase 1 and maybe worth playing by ear?

 

Carriage Siding

Not a bad shout on the adjacent carriage siding, it would fit. Maybe similarly I hold off on ballasting that part of the runaround permanently until the traffic needs of the layout are more apparent? I am a bit reluctant to have carriages blocking the main layout vista and having track right up to the baseboard edge, but I like the shape of the trackplan alot, and it may be that they need to be accomodated somehow and this would be a way to do it:

 

Brighton Victoria 1.0a - Potential trackplan at the end of Phase 1?

 

I am super aware that shunting into the FY is not going to be the most rewarding of operating processes, so I am keen to include the curved board for Phase 2 - maybe stabling the unused carriages at the dock or end of P2 will be sufficient until that board (and whatever it adds operationally) comes to pass?

Edited June 27, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[Lacathedrale]

I have an open request to Grainge & Hodder baseboards to fabricate the baseboards for me (I cannot properly communicate how much I loathe baseboard construction), so while I'm waiting to hear back from that I figure I may as well put the research from LBSCR Carriages Vol 1-4 into practise. I think sorting out the carriage stock for this layout is going to be one of the most challenging parts, so let's get started.

 

After some reading and alot of cross-referencing, I have put together four sets which were allocated to the London-Brighton route and noted where I should be able to re-marshall or re-use the 'expensive' bogie carriages across different train types using matching colours. Set numbers are my own reference!

 

Set 10 Express: BS, PFK, LF, BT  (Brighton Limited)

Set 11 Express: BS, PFK, LF (City Limited)
Set 20 Secondary: BLT, C, T, BT (Bogie Set)

Set 21 Parcels: BLT, C, PMV, CCT, NPV (from a photograph)

 

With these seven bogie carriages, I can create four different real formations and thus eight 'trains'. Obviously though, it wouldn't be a pre-group layout without oodles of 4w and 6w coaches, so here are some rakes which are allocated to the stretch around Brighton, and Three Bridges:

 

Set 30 Branch: 4BT, 4T, 4F, 4T, 4B

Set 31 Local: 4BT, 4T, 6F, 6LC, 4T, 6B (the 6B should be a 54' BT)

Set 32 Local: 6LC, C, T, 6B

Set 33 Branch: 54' DMT

 

Note: I've had to smudge my finger over a couple of the 4w and 6w carriage diagrams to leverage the RTR offerings available, but I feel that it's close enough! Both Hornby and Hattons coaches have their problems: the Hornby models are of LBSCR prototypes but a bit flourescent, while the Hattons ones are more subtly detailed but don't fully correspond to LBSCR patterns, i.e. the shape of the brake end windows, the ducket shape and panelling style.

 

How to bring this all together?

The reason for all this hand waving and back-of-an-envelope scribbling is so I can find a very rough pathway from here (i.e. nothing) to a representative selection of trains on the layout. From the above, both Set 30 and 31 are being bought whole-cloth from Hattons and Hornby as a starting point, and from then I can slowly add to them to 'unlock' other formations. I appreciate that my final stock composition is likely to change, but for the sake of argument to achieve what I've set out above, I would need to build two etched kits (Roxey 54' Brake Third and 54' Motor Trailer), find an appropriate Pullman car kit/RTR, and build five Midland 48' Suburban coach kits (BT, BT as BS, T, C, F as LF) - which doesn't sound too bad at all really!

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Lacathedrale

[ChrisN]

I have no pictures since the board was built, and now the underneath has attracted too much junk, but I do have pictures of when it was being built which may be more helpful.

 

 

Here we have two 4ft 6" x 2ft boards laid side by side.  They were clamped together and drilled for bolt holes.  The bolts here are in waiting for the next step.

 

 

Here holes have been drilled for the dowels, with the boards clamped together, and the dowels pushed in.  There will be pieces of ply behind them to keep them in place.

 

 

Here are four boards together with the holes for the dowels between the front and back boards drilled and the dowels fitted.  It will have been clamped and with those in place it was clamped again for the fixing bolt holes.

 

 

Here the legs are clamped in place, ready to be drilled.  The bolt goes right the way through the double legs in the middle.

 

 

Holes drilled and with spacers at the bottom.

 

The bolt holes are quite tight which probably is not what you want for quick setting up and down, although mine is not that long.  The bolt holes could be larger and the placement solely reliant on the dowels.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Our postings crossed so you probably do not need this now.

Edited June 27, 2022 by ChrisN

[Compound2632]

Sanditon?